Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Footer


 * WikiProject Aircraft/Footer/initialfooterdev


 * WikiProject Aircraft/airbox

Footer customisation
Of course, now we get down to things like "how similar is similar"? Out of the aircraft listed on C-141 Starlifter, the similarity seems to stop at "heavy military transport". Maybe that's enough, but I think it would be preferable to tighten this a bit. It'll always be subjective, but criteria could include same era, and roughly same capability. --Rlandmann 23:59, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * "Development series", "Related Aircraft" were not used in place of "Related Development"


 * For the Starlifter, the problem is that there are actually very few comparable aircraft. The USAF's global responsibilities are unique, and the comparable aircraft are either larger heavylift (C-5, Antonov An-124), smaller (C-130) or airliner derivatives without the loading ramp etc.


 * I think this kind of thing is 'self-correcting' -- we want a short listing of the most comparable planes, and some rarer types have to cast a wider net to find a half-dozen at most, but planes in more populous categories will have closer matches. &mdash;Morven 05:44, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hey I found a great example of footer customization on the Tupolev Tu-204 page. definitely some neat improvements there, thought I should show it for anyone who might find it interesting. Also - should the footer have the same font as the table? I was thinking it might look nicer to have it be the same. I put sample changes in footer below the one from that 204 page. Greyengine5 04:09, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

example of customized footer from the 204 page-


 * I strongly disagree with this kind of tinkering, and I am trying to get the contributor to discuss the issue on this page. Apart from what should be a predictable objection from me about making broad changes to something that is supposed to be a standard across the project, other specific criticisms are:
 * the design bureau and type designation are completely redundant - this information is included in the article title, on the main table, and presumably many times in the article text.
 * "comparable aircraft" is just a different choice of words from the "similar aircraft" row on the standard footer. If it's going to contain the same information, it should have the same name...
 * the designation series is intended to provide navigation forwards and backwards along a particular designation series. This, on the other hand, picks and chooses amongst those designations and therefore breaks that chain of navigation. --Rlandmann 10:38, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Through my long years as aviation professional, aircraft are generally classed as "apples-to-apples" and "oranges-to-oranges" listing. A frozen design is referred as a type and if many copies are made (typically >10, or >1 squadron), it qualifies as a series, if less that, then it is an experimental type. If changes were done to the aircraft in series, then it is a variant. If a variant is produced in big numbers, then it is a series in its own right. These are terms used in aviation circles when type certifications are invoked. Although type and variant were loosely interchangeable in layman's terms, the previous statement is the correct stand.

Therefore it is only proper that say, a Boeing airliner should be grouped together with its series bretheren. I don't see this in Boeing listing i.e. 707 - 720 - 717 - 727 and so on as 720 is a full series. If the logic of Rlandmann is followed then it would be 377 - 387 - 717(Original) - 707 - 717 - 727, but he did not, noting that 387 which is followed by the original 717 are actually precursors of 707!

At the same time he reasoned that Tu-143 - Tu-144 - Tu-145 should be a series!!! Tu-143 and Tu-145 are both unmanned air vehicles whereas Tu-144 is a supersonic airliner!!! It does not make sense at all as far as a useful list is concerned. An airliner should be grouped together with its series bretheren (produced in quantity and in service) e.g. Tu-124 - Tu-134 - Tu-144 - Tu-154. If such sequential listing such as Tu-143 - Tu-144 - Tu-145 is desired please come with a list and hyperlink a table entry into such list.

The term "comparable aircraft" are proper terms to ensure that improper comparisons such as say a C-121(military Lockheed Constellation) and a civilian Douglas DC-7(a contemprorary of Lockheed Constellation, by the way) which are basically similar airplanes.

The space for experimental prototypes are given as "Related types(civil)" and and military variants are "Military variants". Such entries allow all possibilities to be linked. It allows at glance related information. If one were to study the Boeing 707 article, military variants such as KC-135, RC-135, Air Force One and prototypes like Dash 80 and many others are buried in the main text are absent. Anyway why only Russian have "Related developments" and not the West e.g. C-47, C-9, C-121, KC-10, KC-767 and so on?

The title table "Russia's Civil Air Transport" allows focus to be maintained. Of course table titled "Russia's Military Aircraft" does the same too and may be expanded to other categories say "Germany WWII fighters" and so on, providing a useful links to other related materials at a glance. If such initiatives may yield a much more useful table, why not as standards are constantly evolving. I have stated my stand and as a measure of democracy let fellow Wikipedians to ultimately decide. Fikri


 * A few points:


 * The designation series is simply a navigational tool backwards and forwards along a series of designations, which you correctly point out are not necessarily a related series of aircraft. If the aircraft are developed from each other, then they can be placed under "Related development" in the footer.


 * Wikipedia also provides for articles to be placed in series (see Series). This would be an ideal way of handling what you're trying to do with the Russian airliners, and would be very easy to implement via MediaWiki. The ideal place for it would be underneath the data table.


 * All aircraft should have "Related Development" sections unless there are no other types with a common heritage. The reason why the examples you cited do not is because whoever added the footer there simply neglected to put this row in. The most likely explanation is that they simply copied the footer from a page where someone else had also omitted it. The Boeing 707 article should indeed have links to its military counterparts in the footer.


 * The Boeing 7x7 series forms a clear designation sequence on its own. Obviously not every Boeing product falls into this sequence, just like not every MiG aircraft falls into the "MiG-" sequence (for example, Mikoyan-Gurevich I-270).


 * I'll always prefer a single, simple footer that can be implemented on practically every page with little or no modificiation. The more specific the footer, the more subjectivity is involved. Should the MiG-25 have a "Soviet Military Aircraft" footer, a "Soviet Fighter Aircraft" footer, or a "Soviet Interceptor Aircraft" footer? Not to mention the many aircraft that are used by both civil and military operators.


 * I agree with you that "comparable" is a better word than "similar", but don't know if it's that much better to warrant going through every page where the footer is applied in order to change it. If anyone else agrees with this and feels up to the job (Grayengine5?) then I can only encourage you to go ahead... --Rlandmann 01:14, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Just adding that I acknowledge your point about "series" meaning different things in general usage and in specific aviation terminology. If you look at the development of the footer, you can see that the original version used the word "sequence", but this got changed to "series" somewhere in the process of compromises that led to the current table. Once again, if anyone's up to going over all the existing pages and turning all the "Designation series" to "Designation sequence", I certainly won't be objecting. --Rlandmann 02:56, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I didn't intend that thing as a standard footer, just an example customization and ideas for a groups of planes. Its not the greatest, it was primarily the use of customization that attracted me to it. As for this ' series'- in the dev. for the footer, there were a lot of names being floated around and some seemed better for some planes and less so for others. The footer dev was attempt to balance how different aircraft are and what these short names meant. Said differently, it was a compromise compounded by the difficulty in getting a category to mean the same thing for everybody, and fit all the aircraft it would be used for well. I had thought then, people could use standardized sub-names that applied to a given plane betterr- though this did not happen. Since then I further come to think that the names are not long enough to be immediately intuitive, however, the aircraft that are there usually solve this problem. Also since then, I have realized the air pages are a incomplete and unstandardized mass of about ~500 pages. The end-game is that I am both interested in any improvements, but, in support of hardened easily distributable newer standards and more in line with RL's often mentioned stance about changes ("stop the tinkering!";). If there is work on or ideas for a new more customized footer for some group, then I think thats where these new improvements can be incoroporated- at least until things are farther along. The basic idea being that current footer can remain as decent one with a slower development, but, be superceded by a even less adaptable more specific standard for groups. In other words develop a catalog of hardened sets for for various groups. This, I think will partially solve the biggest problem facing all the standards currently- distrobution vs improvement. Can the footer be improved?- yes, Is it distributed enough? no Are these improvements worth the destandardization it will create? no. What that means is that ideas must be harvested from the things people are doing out there, and turned into even more hard, more specific distrbutle formats. Im not sure if this clears anything up, and I think I'v confused myself in the process, but perhaps it sheds some light on why I posted fikri's prototpye here. Greyengine5 05:36, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify that means I support fikri footer on those pages. I think they are a good start to footer customization and improvement. Also, there's enough pages that don't even have a footer, or have very incomplete ones, that trying to bring non-standard ones up to par is not the best way to increase distribution. The footer inevitably destined to be replaced with more customized designs that better serve a specific page. To bring the footer up to date and more in line with proffesional quality knowledge about airplanes is definitely worth moving to. Also, that footer was not a oddball it was on a number of pages, and it could very well be part of its own "wiki project russian civil aircraft" 'suggestion' standard. As for the footer specifically, 'designation series' was indeed decided upon to mean alpha numeric sequence (1, 2,..etc), with 'related aircraft' filling the role of technology related. Im going to put the footer back with some improvements of my own added to it. Finally, while I intend support the basic footer for new pages, etc., I oppose this stifling of incremental changes for specific pages/groups, beacause thats just exactly what the wiki relies upon for improvement. Greyengine5 02:54, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more - but let's design something that is relevant and applicable on a project-wide basis. I'm not irrevocably devoted to this footer, and I'm not in any way opposed to added navigational elements that will benefit the project - the more the better (well, up to a point, I guess - some of what's happening on WikiProject Countries is pretty crazy...)


 * The proof of the pudding is that the footer is rolling out across the project with very, very few hitches, proving that what we collectively came up with here was indeed sound.


 * As I see it, the problem with what you're calling incremental change is that by the nature of the wiki, these changes happen in different directions by contributors largely unaware of one another's work. This doesn't lead to incremental change - it leads to as many different footers as there are contributors.


 * I'll remind you that WikiProjects exist to standardise the presentation of material, and that standardising navigation is a fundamentally Good Idea, not just on Wikipedia, but on any website. I'm sorry if I seem draconian to you, but I'm sure that if you tried tinkering with the standard navigational elements of any WikiProject, you'd get the same reaction (as someone on WikiProject US Presidents did not so long ago, IIRC) --Rlandmann 05:52, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * As a solution/compromise, both footer will remain on the page. Does it create redundunt information?, yes, but there's always duplicate information of pages anyway, and in the case there's real benefit. Both the wiki-footer standard can be upheld and supported, and fiki's footer can develop unhinderded. This may be a useful way of handling conflicts with information standards also- just inlclude both ( if its possible). Im going to try and update the effected pages now.Greyengine5 03:12, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm going to try implementing a series-style box on these pages, that will hopefully be just as acceptable without as much duplication of material... It was on the agenda for tonight, but I'll fast-track it. --Rlandmann 04:48, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * What do you think of that solution? Now we have three layers of footer - one very specific to the aircraft and its close kin, a broader one relevant across all aircraft, and one to the extremely broad lists that cover pretty much the whole of WikiProject Aircraft. --Rlandmann 05:20, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * To be honest I much prefer pruning the proto. footer then to replace it with that. An issue with that is removal of useful content, compared to the proto footer. I recommend having that msg be a part of a further improved russian civil air footer. Let me know if this ok, so you or I could do this. Greyengine5 05:30, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure what you mean? I have no objection per se to any modification of the Tupolev Civil Transport Aircraft series, unless it's duplicating material in the standard footer. --Rlandmann 05:52, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The series would be integrated into the old footer forming one row. The duplicate row (comparable aircraft?) would be removed from the standard footer or the old footer. I like the mini-series, but I still think that footer still needs to develop and be there. Greyengine5 05:58, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I'll oppose that on "slippery slope" grounds - I think any series that's more specialised in scope than the standard footer should stand apart from the standard footer. Some aircraft might belong to a number of different series - this approach would provide the best of both worlds in terms of project-wide standardisation, plus the flexibility of any number of potential series within the project (which can all benefit from the power of Mediawiki elements, which the standard footer can't). --Rlandmann 06:09, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Its slipperly slope to footer customization on this page, which is what this is whole thing has been about. The series can stay then as a separate entity, but the old footer is going back. Any other series can be incorporated into the msg series as you suggest. Footer customization for sub-groups would probably be better then having them integrated into the standard footer or leaving them as free floating stack. I will update the pages now. Greyengine5 06:35, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There has been no "slippery slope to footer customisation". Apart from Fikri's contributions, no-one else seems to have had any major problem with the standard footer that seems to have rolled out more-or-less equally well across a broad range of aircraft types. Once again, you are simply pre-empting problems that just aren't there, and once again I find this incredibly rich coming from someone who has never actually contributed an article on a single aircraft type that's been more than a stub (or sub-stub). --Rlandmann 07:33, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

RL you disappoint me. I thought the resolution went well here, and your comments represent a failure of understanding. As for your last comment- lies. Greyengine5 08:07, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I'll happily admit that I fail to understand a few things. Specifically:
 * Why you think that an article on a specific aircraft type needs to be linked to a whole range of other aircraft manufacturers that had nothing to do with that aircraft.
 * Why you think that the footer needs to contain a whole row to simply state the aircraft's name when it is already contained in the footer (as well as in the first line of the article, the top of the data table, presumably several times in the article, and at the very top of the page in big bold print fercryingoutloud).
 * More generally, I can't understand what advantage you perceive over just using one (or more) series footers implemented via Mediawiki as the need arises from case to case. But I'm willing to let that go as a matter of aesthetics.


 * If I'm mistaken in thinking that you've never contributed more than a stub of an aircraft article, please point out an example and I'll happily retract that comment. Certainly, I'm not aware of any, and I don't appreciate being called a liar. --Rlandmann 08:29, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Fikri, a somone, who by his own account is ' aviation proffesional with years of experience' created this as footer.

It was changed to this:

As a compromise, to uphold both improvement of the page, and the footer standard, both were included. The idea being duplicated material would be pruned out, and the new footer could develop independently

The footer was replaced with this. The tuplov series msg is indeed a great idea but the main issue is still the footer.

&lsaquo;The template below has been proposed for deletion. See [/wiki/:Templates_for_deletion#Template: templates for deletion] to comment and vote.&rsaquo;

The content of msg was reintegrated into the footer, for easy updating of all the effected pages. Any more related series could be added to the special footer without effecting the standard

I fully support the standard footer and the standard table, and, also any new any improved footers for groups of pages or new standardized tables(new areas). I support short msg's like the airlist box and RL's tu series. Also of note, the project guidlines are suggestions, not laws to be enforced. If, however RL wants to examine my work, such as what non-stub pages I'v done, he can find them himself as he's wasted enough of my time. Greyengine5 21:42, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's an excellent summary of what's taken place so far. As I'm disinclined to turn this into an edit war, I'll wait a few days for input from other participants before making any more edits to those pages.

I firmly believe that a design element adopted by consensus as a standard should remain a standard across the project, while also upholding the value of creating series within the project.

Greyengine5 is factually wrong about what a WikiProject sets out to do. A WikiProject is a metadata strategy that (amongst other things):


 * establishes the formatting conventions for individual entries eg: how each individual entry should be structured - in a biographical entry - relevant dates, notable achievements, etc
 * establishes the formatting conventions for hierarchical descendants eg: guidelines on how to define "Prime Ministers of New Zealand" as a descendant of "Prime Minister" as a descendant of "Political Leader"

(from User:Manning_Bartlett/WikiProject, the proposal that created WikiProjects within the pedia)

The standard aircraft data table and the standard footer are examples of the first point there, and establishing a hierarchy of footers moving from the specific (like Tupolev civil transports) to the more general (like the standard footer) to the most general (the airlistbox) is an example of the second.

If Greyengine5 doesn't like WikiProjects, he's free not to participate, but IMHO he shouldn't be working against a WikiProject standardising material in an area he's barely contributed to. --Rlandmann 01:25, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I was going on are wikipage header: "..A few Wikipedians have gotten together to make some suggestions about how we might organize data in articles about aircaft. These are only suggestions, things to give you focus and to get you going, and you shouldn't feel obligated in the least to follow them.."

Just in case it wasn't clear: "..I fully support the standard footer and the standard table, and, also any new any improved footers for groups of pages or new standardized tables(new areas). I support short msg's like the airlist box and RL's tu series..."

I thought this issue was resolved. The standard footer was upheld and the tupelov footer could develop on its own to.

I do like the project, and I was standardizing- this sub-footer

I have done more then 'barely contribute', to suggest otherwise is false and not acceptable. Greyengine5 03:06, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The disclaimer at the top of WikiProject pages is part of the "don't bite the newbies" philosophy - in other words, indicating to contributors that they don't need to worry too much about getting everything perfectly right (because someone else will come along later and tidy things up). Otherwise, the long and often complex sets of conventions laid out on WikiProject pages could be very daunting indeed.


 * It's hard to see how you're supporting the standard footer when you've deliberately altered it on every one of the Tupolev pages that you added it to.


 * Furthermore, while insisting that the "Tupolev footer" should be allowed to develop, you've simply reverted my attempt to evolve it into something that (I contend) could be of great use not just on these pages, but many other aircraft pages as well. There's no information contained in the "Tupolev footer" that's not already contained in the standard footer, the tu-civ-trans box, and the article itself. How is that "allowing it to develop"?


 * I should have been more specific about my accusation as to your lack of contribution. I meant specifically in the terms of articles on aircraft types - the ones that actually use the footer. You have, of course, contributed greatly in many other parts of the project, and I apologise for suggesting otherwise - that was very badly worded on my part. --Rlandmann 08:53, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I think the tuplov footer concentrated useful info, and can contain info thats not in the article. For, example that ordering of planes and the design bureas. A footer of related codename could be added as well. As for the tu-civ text, it is inside that new footer, as a msg- its developed already, and could be 'of greatuse' to other pages as well (i.e the footer does not interfer with it). Many of the things stand in the standard footer duplicate things as well. Footer for subsets of groups should be alolowed to develop. This is not about changing the standard footer. How the standard footer, and new footer co-exist has yoet to be totally decided, and I though the compromise here was fine. As far as design of that footer, my changes were and attempt to aviod duplication when I re-intgrated it into the page. The 'standard' footer there had already been changes so I just left it with some core categories.  Greyengine5 17:16, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The NATO reporting name is usually contained at the beginning of the article, where it is conventional throughout Wikipedia to list alternate names. Why does this need to be a separate footer element as well?
 * This is fikri footer development issue.Greyengine5 00:47, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * You say that "footers for subsets of groups should be allowed to develop" - yet you have stifled development of a generalised intra-Project footer by simply reverting it out of existence.
 * Yes I believe first part. The second part is yet another false personal criticism. I was never involved in intra project footer, know what your referring to, nor reverted it.Greyengine5 00:47, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * On second thought, I realized you actually might be talking about the tup-civ box here- but that wasn't reverted, it was integrated into the footer. And it wasn't general, it was a fikri footer stripped to 1 line and turned into a message, and I'll state yet again I support 'footers for subsets of groups'. I have no idea why you so vehemontly oppose fikri's footer- even more so, if, by your false critcism of me, it can be understood to mean you support footers/boxes for subsets of groups as well.


 * The compromise here was fine to you - but not to me. The compromise that included the tu-civ-trans box was fine to me, but not apparently to you.
 * I liked the tu-civ-trans box and it is there, integrated into the fikri footer. The trans box by itself eliminats most of the footer content, whereas the footer includes the trans box content.Greyengine5 00:47, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, I admit that I forgot that for some reason that quite escapes me, you think it's necessary to link these aircraft to completely unrelated design bureaux. Put another way, this would be like insisting that the article on the Boeing 747 needs a direct link to the Northrop company article. Could you please explain the logic behind that?
 * This is fikri footer development issue. I dont think there unrelated, there all soviet design burea's- regardless, development of the fikri footer can take place on its page and cover these kinds of issues.


 * If this is your idea of "compromise" then please at least have the integrity to re-implement the standard footer in whole on the pages that you've re-arranged it to your liking. --Rlandmann 22:37, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Disregareding yet another vauge personal criticism '..at least have the integrity..', the footer was not complete when the page started. I removed duplicate content(not rearrange) the footer to meet your problem with duplicate content. How the standard and dev. footer co-exist was something that was left largely open, and part of those pages future development. Greyengine5 00:47, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Put another way - what elements from Fikri's footer should be incorporated into the tu-civ-trans box to make it an acceptable compromise to you if it were implemented alongside the standard footer. --Rlandmann 22:44, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * How fikri's footer, air-boxes, and the standard footer co-exist on pages is lot more harder to figure out then just whether the fikir's can be there and develop or not. However, since the tup-civ is basically 1 line of fikri's footer turned into msg, it could be exapanded to any any content thats not unique to a page or not capable of being part of group. It would also not be a customizeable footer anymore, which is what this whole debate has been about. I think a better question is what parts of the footer render it unacceptable?   Greyengine5 00:47, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)