Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Footer/initialfooterdev

Initial Footer Development
First go at an idea for a footer for aircraft articles. Suggest that none of these elements should contain more than about 5-6 links - should err on the side of brevity... (will look better on white (normal) pages, too)

Example - table for Messerschmitt Me 163

--Rlandmann 01:30, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Example - table for P-51 Mustang

2
Ok basically i tried to compact it, changed the other commas to slashes, and changed the coloring a little. I could not get 'related content' to center properly. Also is it possible to do this in wiki-code rather then html ( is that even possible?).

I like the content thats incuded the I had some concerns. One is whether the sequence means the development sequence or just the number sequence. For example the F-20 is a development of the F-5 even thoughs its not after in designation.

Also, should similar aircraft mean the aircraft contemporaries (ones it fought with), ones that existed at same time, or ones with similair type performance. I suppose it can be adapted as the case requires though and more categories could be added as necessary.


 * It is possible to do it in wiki-code, and definitely desirable once the format's finalised.


 * "Sequence" I'm suggesting for designations, not development. Related developments are in the "Related aircraft" section. For some types, this would be very linear, for others very complicated, so I don't see a value in trying to indicate the sequence too closely here.


 * "Similar aircraft" I'm suggesting as famous and/or noteworthy aircraft that are closely similar in role and era. I note you've been doing this already for some time in "See also" sections. There's always going to be some degree of subjectivity here, of course...


 * --Rlandmann 05:26, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * It might be worth havging distinction between related aircraft and related development aircraft. Perhaps a 'development' one for related development, the 'sequence' for the designations, and the related for aircraft that were clones for example. Certainly it may not be a worthwhile distinction, but it might be useful for at least some aircraft. Greyengine5 05:54, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Maybe - can you give an example of what you mean? --Rlandmann 06:14, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

3
OK, I present the wikified version of the table. I've made a couple of changes from the small version above. One is that I have centred the table itself, and I've removed the off-white background from the main section. The colour removal can, of course, easily be reversed.

If you were trying to centre the table using the align="center" style attribute, you were making a common mistake of many with CSS. That style attribute only works with inline elements. A table is a block level element, and thus needs its margins being set to auto in order to get it centred..

Personally, I was thinking about proposing a table at the bottom of an article containing links to all the variants of an aircraft. However, this concept seems workable enough, provided we define sequence carefully. For airforces lacking an overall designation progression, like the RAF, attempting to assemble a development line could prove somewhat tricky. It could be done, but it would not be the same as a potential USAF or Luftwaffe list.David Newton 06:17, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks - looking good :) The designation sequence can be defined differently for different categories of aircraft. In many cases (airliners and most other civil types, Soviet military aircraft) it should probably link forwards and backwards to other aircraft by the same manufacturer. As usual, if it doesn't make sense for a category of aircraft (or a particular aircraft) it should just be dropped...


 * Time will tell about individual pages for different variants, but if this practice becomes widespread (as I suppose it eventually will - at least for major types), maybe it should begin the table.


 * On the other hand, if pages like P-51 Mustang eventually just refer to the general characteristics of the aircraft and direct the reader to individual variant pages, then the big standard data table will be unnecessary and can be replaced with a variants directory... (personally, I prefer this approach to the above) --Rlandmann 06:35, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

4

 * That table is looking quite good. Perhaps we could have differnt partially standardized footers for different air force, catering to each of there needs? Clearly there's lot of different ways aicraft can be related, but its seems the categories thats being honed in on are these categories of:


 * related designations(Designation Sequence)( as in F-14, F-15, F-16..),
 * related in develment (Variants)( technogy wise).
 * related by manufacturer, (no category yet)
 * and related by being a variant/clone/ etc (Variant?) ( as in Ju 248, Mitsubishi J8M.)
 * and the aircrafts contemporaries (Similar Aircraft)
 * ( and of course the lists link as well)

I guess the grey area right now is the difference between variants of the aircraft ( like F-15A, F-15B, ..) (although as said this may be within the article), Clones of the Aircraft, Development Aircraft ( or projects), Airplanes that preceded or were after that shared a lot of technology but were developments of given aircraft and got new names ( as in Me 163 Ju 248 etc... or the A-12 and SR-71), and the aircraft contempories that it may fought with eacthother share a similar technogy era.

As another idea- would it be posible to do comething similair to this fotter information- but right under the table so people dont have to scroll to the bottom? Perhaps we could have the footer and put some other type of catgory there ( maybe just variants). One idea /attempt at it:

The idea being it would go under the table on the right side. Greyengine5 21:55, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

4
I agree that slightly different standards for different air forces (and, more generally, different categories of aircraft) is the way to go - we already do this with the naming conventions. Where there is a convenient, ready-made designation system (US military, WWII Luftwaffe) we can use that, otherwise we default back to manufacturer. For this reason, I prefer to keep the name of the row deliberately vague - "series" or "sequence"

Example - MiG-15

I think the (small) benefit of a less squashed box at the bottom of the page outweigh the (small) benefit of not having to scroll to get there. The current data table already takes up a lot of room on the page - I'd rather not see it extended. --Rlandmann 23:35, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Test page
As a demo, I've added this last version to the Messerschmitt Me 163 page, along with the latest version of the table. --Rlandmann 07:00, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Looks good, probably best to leave out gridlines I guess as it looks less cluttered then ( With respect to the smaller table). The footer i changed to this:

On the hyphen issue its probably ok to leave it out. However leaving 'kg' as a unit of weight does perpetuate the misconception that it is. Really it should be kgf - and perhaps a link to a site explaning the matter. And finally, is there any way to change the ToC so id does not take up so much space there? Greyengine5 18:59, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * If we're going to be precise about it, weight should be measured in newtons. And what's kgf? update: I have discovered what kgf is now. Marnanel 19:13, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * The confusion here really is not between Kg and N, it's between the scientific use of the word "weight" and the layperson's use of the word "weight" (to refer to "mass"). Common usage should prevail here wherever possible. --Rlandmann 23:50, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Font
-regular footer with table font. added " font-family:Arial,Helvetica" " and changed text size to 72% (same as table).

5
current footer for comparison-


 * I'll go on the record as not caring which one we use. But I wish the tinkering would stop. --Rlandmann 10:38, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Ah ok I'll make that changes then to the font. As for the other footer, not really sure about what you said there- not really worth debating though. (not with your penchant for endless arguing!). I do agree with you that haveing the standards settle down is good, however. Greyengine5 18:51, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)