Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Footer dispute

Introduction
The current dispute is over how more specialised footers can be implemented in WikiProject Aircraft and specifically customizations made to footer for tupolev civil aircraft.

History of dispute
for an exhaustive history, containing all discussion between participants, see here

Fikri's footer:

Current standard footer:

Rlandmann
WikiProject Aircraft/Footer dispute RLlandmanns event summary (also in detailed summary)

I maintain that the standard footer should, as far as is possible, remain a standard across the entire project.

I believe that linking closely related aircraft in series is a "Good Thing".

My specific problems with the footer created by Fikri and re-instated twice now by Greyengine5 are


 * I see no logic in linking specific aircraft to completely unrelated aircraft manufacturers. Insising that an article about a Tupolev airliner needs a direct link to an article about the Mikoyan-Gurevich design bureau is like insisting that Boeing 747 needs to link directly to Northrop.


 * The aircraft's designation has already been spelled out in the article title, the first line of the article, the data table, and presumably many times in the article itself. To me, including a special row in a footer just to repeat this again seems like the worst kind of redundancy.


 * On a number of these pages, another whole line was used simply to hold the aircraft's NATO reporting name. Again, this should be redundant, since this information should be contained in the first line of the article itself as an alternative name (as per the Naming conventions)


 * Variants of this aircraft under different designations are already handled in the "Related Developments" line of the standard footer. There has already been discussion about implementing a special table for navigation to different variants of the same basic aircraft - see discussion under "Variants" here.


 * Comparable aircraft merely duplicates the "Similar aircraft" line of the standard footer under a different name. Fikri has argued that this is a more appropriate name, and I agree - but that's another issue, and if other people agree too, then that's a change that could be implemented to the standard footer.

More generally, I believe that implementing a series footer such as my suggestions below creates a neat hierarchy of footers, from very closely related aircraft, to the more general links contained in the standard footer, to the very general links contained in the collection of links that appears at the bottom of all aircraft articles. In time, if a more general WikiProject Transport ever generates a broader footer again, this can go below all three.

Footers across Wikipedia are not used to present new information, nor as summaries of information from the article itself, but rather as navigation devices. Including things like the aircraft's designation and its NATO reporting name seem contrary to general practice.

Greyengine5
To summarize- I support the standards of the airproject developed, and intra-airproject footers for smaller groups, especially ones that add useful content created by aviation proffesionals. At this point it seems to come down to the exact nature of these custimized footers. Im tired of debating this and tired of going over the same issues repeatedly, and will go with whatever all the airproject members come to a consesus on. Greyengine5 21:51, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

One corrections/info- I support the standard footer format. In regards to standard footer on those pages, the page did not have a complete standard footer initially, so when I put it back it was whatever quality was there. Rl mentioned a problem with duplicating information, so I merged one duplicate line and put it in the new footer to accomdate this problem and would have just as easily left it.

Number of bureas listed- Sukhoi, Beriev, and Mil as wll have civilian aircraft. I don't know if kamov or mig do though. I don't see a problem with linking russian airplanes with links to other russian design bureas that currently include aircraft lists, or redirecting to directly to dedicated lists.

Where we were probably headed with our debate. (Attempt to extrapolate)

The normal footer would be here with its usual categories.

Comments by the community
I am something of a fringe-dweller on this project so I don't expect my opinion to carry full weight but my feeling is that as long as the standard "Related Content" footer is present and complete, I am happy. I have no problem with introducing additional footers but if they use the same appearance as the "Related Content" footer, they should be used for navigation only. Presenting information that relates to the subject aircraft only should be done in the article text or the infobox. Geoff/Gsl 23:26, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

WTF? We are supposed to work together here. The standard footer project has been a great success and here we are buggerising about casting aspersions. Who cares who said what to who and in which order? Gahhh .....

It's no wonder that there isn't much "community participation" going on here - no-one except you two can be bothered wading through that great list of "he said then I said" stuff above. Now, how about we draw a horizontal rule and present two footers, one from each of you, and regard these two as drafts for a unified and agreed standard footer? Tannin 01:06, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Proposed footers for compromise

 * Rlandmann compromise proposals

I'd be pretty much equally happy with any of the following (each followed by the standard footer and the Aviation lists)

1

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

2

3


 * Grey5 compromise proposals

Once again, its whatever the community wants. I liked fikri's and would accept wide range of designs, but I do oppose turing it into a 1 line msg. Greyengine5 01:25, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thankyou gentlemen. That is much clearer, and I can see (more or less) where the difficulties lie now. Essentially, it boils down to a clash between two worthy but opposing ideals. Greyengine5 wants to have as much information as possible in each article, Rlandmann favours a more minimalist approach, with just the bare essentials. Both aims are good ones.

I have not participated in the development of the aircraft footers, but as a veteran of the long-running, contentious, and yet ultimately successful process that came up with the current taxobox format used for all life forms, I think I can claim some relevant experience here. So far as overall wiki convention goes, it clearly leans towards the more minimalist approach - but notice I say "leans towards", not "is completely dominated by". The answers we came up with over there are probably the same answers we should aim at over here, and the guiding philosophy was to include all the essentials but exclude non-essentials. It took a while, but that process satisfied just about everyone eventualy. Tannin 01:50, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I'll add that Greyengine5 and I apparently agree on the content of the standard footer, as displayed above. Any of the specific series footers selected will need to be read in the context of appearing above that footer and the "Aviation lists". --Rlandmann 01:56, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * This is correct. Greyengine5 02:02, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ahh, in that case, the decision is easy then. To my mind, the big boxes are way too big when they appear on a page that already includes two other footer boxes and an upper right infobox as well. My cote is for Rlandman's second proposal (the red one above). In combination with the other two (agreed on) boxes, that leaves only thing out that is of moderate utility: i.e., the listing of Design Bureau, Antonov - Beriev - Ilyushin and so on. I'd be happy enough to leave that out completely, on the grounds that we are over any sensible space budget already, but it would be nice to have just the same. Is there a solution to this dilemma? As it happens, there is. It would be a simple matter to make a new page called (say) List of Soviet Design Bureau and link to that in the standard footer (as it has plenty of spare space already). The result would look something like this:

Now, have I left anything important out? Hmmm ....


 * The red heading looks great on its own, but a bit odd in when the other ones are black. They should all be the same colour. That's easy to change.
 * The NATO codenames are pointless clutter and certainly should be left out.
 * The "Primary Designation Series" stuff is included, so that's OK.
 * Extended "see also" lists are usually dealt with in the main text. Alternatively, they can be simply linked to, and we have already done this with the "Related lists" line.

Yup. That seems to cover it. So far as I can see, this proposal (or any of a dozen broadly similar ones) includes all the essential information GE5 wants to have in, and also manages to keep things neat and trim as RLM wants.

Over to you, gentlemen. Tannin 03:00, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The heading is only red because it links to an article that doesn't yet exist (List of Russian civil transport aircraft), but which, if created, would bring this version of the footer even closer to what Fikri & Greyengine5 seem to have wanted, by allowing navigation just among this narrow class of aircraft. --Rlandmann 03:09, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah. I realised that just after I'd posted. Sometimes I'm not very bright :( Tannin


 * I suggest a better solution to List of Soviet design bureaux would be a list of Russian civil aircraft, since this is closer to the lists that military aircraft link to in the standard footers typically found on their pages (Russian/Soviet military aircraft carry a link to list of military aircraft of the Soviet Union and the CIS).


 * The current "Aviation lists" contains a link to List of aircraft manufacturers though, so I wouldn't strongly oppose list of Soviet and Russian aircraft design bureaux in either the "series footer" or the standard footer (even if I still think it's a bit superfluous) --Rlandmann 03:16, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How 'bout this. Greyengine5 03:20, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * While I'll reluctantly accept a link to a generalised list of design bureaux, I can't see how or why we need a link to each and every (major) one of them in a footer like this.


 * I don't think that we even need links to a general list of reporting names, let alone three of them - I think this is needless clutter.


 * Finally, as far as the reporting name of the aircraft that the particular article's about, I'll reiterate that it is not general practice for navigational footers to contain factual/summary information at all. --Rlandmann 03:31, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I like the visual layout, GE5, but strongly oppose the NATO codename thing. NATO reporting names are an offensive relic of the Cold War and no-one uses them. (Well, it's possible that there are people in the USA or somewhere, but no-one that I have ever heard of.) OK, we are stuck with them to a certain extent, but definitely not in a bold-type footer. I'm not convinced about the "Primary Designation Series" header either. It seems very jargony.

But visually, yes. Easy to read and a very nice look that will go well with the standard footers. Tannin 03:36, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * "Primary designation series" isn't even jargon - it was apparently coined by Fikri just as a name for that row in his take on the table. The fact that it sounds like jargon but isn't makes it all the more problematic, since it's then somewhat misleading --Rlandmann 03:40, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * A page on a russian aircraft is well served by links to other makers of russian aircraft, and since there's so few its easiest just to include the links. On top of that none of these other pages even exist, nor fit well into the projects one super list. We already disscussed the possibility of moving aircraft lists to dedicated pages, or using code to jump to a spot in larger list earlier.


 * Codenames are very important to cold war aircraft as these were often the only names that were used, often in the press or books. Also, many aircraft owed there whole development to a aircraft only known by 'secret' names. Having a link to explain codenames, and of each countries codenames to me is just part of history and not really POV.


 * As for the name 'primary desg. series' I was just defaulting to fikri expertise as a avtiation proffesional. If this is incorrect then, of course, it should be changed.


 * Fikri's footer debate perhaps boiled down to debate over weather footers are purely navigational or provide content. If this was the only footer there might be case for that, but its not srictly a navigational footer. In addition, even the regular footer is not strictly navigational as it shows where a plane is in a heirachy orin development - something thats usually mentioned int the article as 'this XX was development of XX and followed by XX'. Fikri's footer is just a standardized way of presenting page content more similair to the table then the footer in terms of theory. Greyengine5 03:51, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * There are many, many more design bureaux than those - they are the major ones though. How is is "easier" to include a list of links than just one link?


 * I agree that it's important that we report the NATO reporting names of Cold War aircraft, but disagree that this footer (or any footer) is the place to do it.


 * The standard footer is strictly navigational - it contains only links.


 * Finally, at some point, I think that you and I have to agree to a "hands-off" period on this page to allow others to contribute opinions without them being swamped by the two of us. I propose 48 hours, and I'll even let you get the last word. Deal? --Rlandmann 04:05, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Sure I meant the major ones and that we have articles for.


 * Easier in that other bureas are 1 click away rather then 2 with a list.


 * Even with links its telling dev history with a row. Anyway, the main point is that fikri's is not totally a nav footer and more in line with the table in terms of way standardize/concentrate information in addtion to giving some nav info. Perhaps it should have blue/grey outline? (i.e we set the precedent grey for nav, blue for content)


 * Yea agreed. Lets make just it whole week break for some serious break time. Deal -gladly accepted. (provided thats ok) Greyengine5 05:08, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * A week it is. Perhaps Tannin or another neutral 3rd party wouldn't mind moving some of our comments from today onto the dispute history page to clean this one up a little. --Rlandmann 05:14, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I think they should be left here since thats more for the old disccusions, and these last few comments are pretty relevant and concise. If they are moved they should go to there own page. There's my last post as per our argreement. Greyengine5 05:28, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm with Rlandmann on this one guys. Anything that has to do with this plane should be placed in the "side table" or the article itself. There's no need to add it again at the bottom. Keep it simple, stupid.

However I also agree that some sort of linkage to related articles is warranted. The question appears to be what it should include. To my mind the "designation series" is largely useless, as it includes unrelated designs. I would much prefer a "design series" entry which links to other articles about planes developed from this one. In this particular example the 204 would have links to the 104, 124 and 214, but not the 114, 144 or 154, which are completely unrelated aircraft.


 * This is surely what the Related development line is for --Keith Edkins 15:00, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But that brings me full circle. These lines could easily be included in the side-table, and they are on-topic for that aircraft.

So in the end, I vote for the original "mini-links" format (the blue box), with everything else in the article or side-table.

Maury 12:25, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that burdening an aircraft article with a list of Design Bureaux is too great a payload. Especially in this case, as few of the Bureaux produced civilian designs. If the main List of aircraft is getting too long for anyone, let there be a list List of civilian aircraft of the Soviet Union and the CIS in Bureau order and include it in their Related Content box. --Keith Edkins 15:00, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My own comments on this issue are that I do not recall paying attention to the footer. However, it is entirely possible that I have used it and benefitted from it 'transparently' (i.e. benefitting from using a tool without being aware of the tool itself). I do not see too much objectionable in anything that has been said.

As concepts go, I like

a minimalist approach For example, I can see the benefit of children referring to their own parents, but not to their aunts and uncles. Thus a Tupolev 204 might have a reference to Tupolev but I do not see why it should mention other design bureaux. If we start using lateral family relationships, we might expect the Harrier to mention both American and British aircraft. I like the 'similar' or 'comparable' aircraft idea, but that is explicitly subjective. Authors and readers presumably understand the limitaions of that and take it for what it is.

a scalable approach America and Russia have developed a lot of aircraft so this type of complexity may be inevitable. However, I think it is sometimes useful to think about the issue in terms of how it might look for a small country that has only one manufacturer and perhaps half a dozen designs.

a transferable approach This is similar to the scalability issue. What would we do about international development projects. If we look at Airbus or Eurofighter, would we put the design bureaux of all the countries involved in the consortium? If we consider a footer design for aircraft, should we think of how it might transfer to something similar like aero engines? I have already suggested that the good work done on the standard aircraft table should be considered for the ship table.

say it once The standard table, the footer, and the text on the page should not really duplicate each other. Thus if the design bureau is mentioned in the standard table

As details go, I like the code to be simple and make use of default settings. I like it to be flexible for all browsers and window sizes. However, I do like the font used in the standard table, which is not the default.

Other than that, I am not too concerned about the details. If it is minimal, I will be happy. Bobblewik 20:58, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)