Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Footer dispute detailed

Began here:footer discussion page

 Detailed history of dispute created for the main dispute commentary page WikiProject_Aircraft/Footer_dispute

Dispute History
copy of what took place there:

Hey I found a great example of footer customization on the Tupolev Tu-204 page. Definately 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 similiar 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 comprimise 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 definatly 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/comprimise, both footer will remain on the page. Does it create redundunt infomation?, yes, but there's always duplicate information of pages anyway, and in the case there's real benifit. Both the wiki-footer standard can be upheld and supported, and fiki's footer can develop unhinderded. This may be a usefull 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 usefull content, compared to the proto footer. I reccomend 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 seperate 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 comprimise, 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 teh 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 usefull 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 teh 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 comprimise 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 refering 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)

Continued
The debate shifted to talk pages, first as a second track but as main debate area

RL comments related to footer in Grey's talk
What "vauge reference to other resolved incidents"? If anything, I refrained from pointing out that your insistence on bloat as far as the footer goes is part of a general tendency I believe that you have towards bloat in general. To qualify that comment - I can't recall a single instance where you have proposed cutting something down to make it more concise or compact, only where you've wanted to pack more and more into any given element of an article. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing - one of the major tensions across the pedia in general is between so-called inclusionists and deletionists. I'll freely admit to being a mild form of the latter, while your behaviour suggests the former to me.

Like I said on the actual project page - if you've contributed more than a stub- please point it out and I'll gladly retract the remark and apologise for making it. In any case, you haven't contributed very many. Despite your taking this as a "slap in the face" I believe it's relevant here, since you simply lack the experience to know how well the footer is working (or not).

As usual, I would find it more useful if you can point to specific examples of problems rather than indulging in hand-waving along the lines of "but there might be some plane out there that this doesn't work for". I'll reiterate my position that there's no footer (or other article element) that works equally well for all examples all the time. But I think that the standard footer works more than reasonably well in every example I've seen it used in.

I'll admit to having misunderstood your position during the footer creation process - I thought you were reasonably happy for this to be used as a standard element across the project. Seems like we weren't as close to consensus as I thought. --Rlandmann 08:46, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'll add that I find it highly ironic that your enthusiasm for incremental change or customisation doesn't extend to include Bobblewik's work on your skyscraper table. --Rlandmann 08:57, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Its was the type of change not the idea of it. I suggest you check things out before posting this kind of crap. Greyengine5 21:23, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Likewise, it's not the idea of changing the footer that I'm opposed to - just the type of change. I've made it clear that I'm not particularly dedicated to this footer. If, by consensus, we can come up with a better footer that's applicable across the project, then you can be sure that I'll be leading the charge to implement it. --Rlandmann 01:03, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Yet another change of topic from what being discussed. The footer is issue is resolved and I have no interest in reviving this debate. Greyengine5 02:07, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Perhaps - but only in (an apparently futile) attempt to get you to see a different perspective. --Rlandmann 22:51, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I already know your perspective. Its your understanding of my perspective thats wrong. I dont want to change the stadard footer ( at least not for a long time, and even then it wouls be in the manner you suggest. The only things that futile is this endless, useless, waste of time debates you pursue. Greyengine5 23:13, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have to confess that I'm not really too concerned with how pleasant or otherwise you find my comments - I'm not here to please you and I prefer to call a spade a spade. I don't believe that I have expanded the issue beyond what's at hand, and I believe that I haven't made any personal comment beyond what I feel to be relevant to the issue at hand. You are free to disagree, but I'll only apologise if I've made a factual error.

If you feel that you're being treated harshly or unfairly, I suggest you select another WikiProject of your choice and start monkeying with its standard elements and examine the reaction you receive.

Finally, I point out the apparent contradiction that you're very keen to espouse the idea of anyone being free to change anything on the wiki, while at the same time not so keen to defend changes when they operate against your agendas. I find this position disingenuous to say the least and under the circumstances find it impossible to have any respect for your personal version of "the freedom of the wiki".

Again, you're not alone in your anarchic approach, which is why the idea of appointing topic editors for different parts of the wiki is now gaining momentum.

Despite all this, I affirm again that I think you make many valuable contributions here. I am especially impressed with the excellent job you did on the airlistbox, and, more recently, with the List of military aircraft of Sweden. --Rlandmann 01:03, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth - I've never set out to insult or inflame you, but neither am I going to temper my remarks any longer on an issue where considerable debate had already taken place, compromises had been reached, and which has resulted in a product that was (and is) being rolled out very smoothly across the project. If you can nominate specific issues or problems with the standard footer (beyond simply asserting that some people might want to implement the footer differently), then please say what they are.


 * I feel frustrated when I read your comment that compromises "must be reached sooner and with less wasted time,effort" when from my perspective, it seems that no sooner has compromise been reached and everyone's reasonably happy than you want to re-open it all over again. That's how I experienced part of the data table "debate" and how I'm experiencing the footer fiasco at the moment.


 * If I may be so bold - the real strengths that you have demonstrated so far have been in the areas of systematising information in tables and lists. I may very well be overstepping bounds by suggesting it - but there's a lot of work in that area that's still needed for WP:A, including creating article templates and/or data tables for air forces, airlines, engines, and weapons. Not to mention rolling out something like what you've done for the Swedish aircraft across the other aircraft "inventories" that we have. I'd be all too keen to work with you in any of those areas, and/or aid you in implementing them. On the proviso, of course, that once a standard has been agreed on, we stick to it! --Rlandmann 05:03, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your continuing advice - you can be quite sure I'll be ignoring it. I'm not letting this issue go until we have come up with a compromise acceptable to both of us - rather than just the one that you find acceptable. --Rlandmann 22:51, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd much rather have a debate (even one that you personally find "protracted") than just engage in a pointless edit war. This way leads to a way forward, edit wars achieve nothing but bad blood.


 * The first thing I'm going to ask for, though, is that you restore the standard footer to the pages that you altered it on. Then we can discuss the pros-and-cons of the other footer that you've put there. My problems with it are actually very specific and have already been spelled out, but I'll gladly distill them down into a more workable form if you can show the good faith to restore the footers first. --Rlandmann 03:36, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm really puzzled by your last remark - I'm not forcing you to waste any time at all - if you don't want to participate in discussion, you don't have to. What would you rather me do when I strongly disagree with you? Just revert your edits without any explanation? ...(which is about the treatment you'd get on most other projects, from what I've seen - maybe I've been too conciliatory?)


 * I say again that I've never set out to insult - maybe you need to learn to be a little less thin-skinned if you're going to continue to lock horns with people in areas that you know will be contentious. Not an insult - just an observation since you seem to keep going on about being somehow insulted.


 * The combination of Fikri's footer and the standard footer that I'd be most happy with is the one that you reverted (ie with Fikri's footer developed into the more general tu-civ-trans box). As I see it, the only worthwhile information contained in Fikri's footer that wasn't already covered better elsewhere on the page was the closely-related types that I copied into the tu-civ-trans box - which I think is an excellent addition to navigation.


 * The biggest benefit I see in that approach is that it presents linking material in a hierarchical fashion - Closely related types > Broader categories (standard footer) > Broader Categories still (airlistbox). If and when WP Aircraft becomes a division of a broader WP Transport, then a WP Transport footer could be added below that again (broader still).


 * The biggest problem that I have with your piecemeal approach to simply re-arranging the standard footer anyway it tickles one's fancy any time that one likes (for good reasons, or no reasons at all) is that it quickly ceases to be a standard, at which point there's no real advantage in it over just a bunch of "see also" links - which is where we started from before the footer. If nothing else, it leads to misunderstandings, such as Fikri's belief that the "Related Development" row was somehow only applicable to Eastern European aircraft, all because someone had neglected to implement this row in the Boeing 7x7 and Airbus articles - something that could quite easily have happened by accident because they copied it from someone else who had "customised" the footer.


 * The proof of the pudding is in the eating - the standard footer is working, and while I'm the first to admit that there are improvements that could be made, I continue to argue that these should be made systematically, project-wide. --Rlandmann 05:31, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree that telling lies about people is insulting. Based on your previous complaints, you can only be referring to my observation that you've never contributed a single article on an aircraft type that was more than a stub. I still believe this to be true. If it's not - I'm simply mistaken, not lying, and one I would be all to happy to retract if I'm shown otherwise. So - unless you've made those contributions under a different user name (unlikely, since your writing and spelling styles are very distinctive) I'm very confident that I'm correct. The open-ness with which I'm make that observation is commensurate with my certainty that the observation is true. I'm not one to make baseless accusations, or to make any accusation lightly.

Since you state that you don't have a problem with my restoring those footers to the current standard, I will go ahead and do so. As for Fikri's footer, let's examine it element-by-element.


 * Design Bureaux: please tell me why on Earth we need this. Like I said, it's like insisting that Boeing 747 really needs to link directly to Northrop.


 * Type Designation: also completely superfluous and redundant - if the reader hasn't worked out that the article's about the Tu 214 by the time they've hit this footer, then something's badly wrong, no?


 * NATO "Codename": as an alternative name, this belongs (as per general Wikipedia style guidelines) at the top of the article. Why does such special attention need to be drawn to it here? IMHO, this is the single most pointless line of the footer.


 * Primary Designation Series: the one element in Fikri's footer that gives us something new and useful on the page, which is why I'm so keen to see it implemented and advanced across the project.


 * Comparable Aircraft: since this is one-to-one identical information with what's contained in the standard footer, why do we need this?

I have no doubt as to Fikri's credentials, nor to his good intentions. But neither of those things, on their own, mean that articles that he creates shouldn't fit the same standards as the others that form part of this project.

As an inclusionist, I know that you're keen to adopt every new idea that anyone comes up with. I suggest to you that not every new idea is a good idea, let alone one worth implementing. I hope that I've shown that I don't think every new idea is a bad one. --Rlandmann 10:25, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * OK now I think we're getting somewhere :) FWIW, I really, really appreciate the frankness of your last reply.


 * I was correct, then, in thinking that Dornier Do 10 was the longest aircraft article you've contributed. "Stub" refers to the amount of content, not how long it took the contributor to research the material, so I stand by my observation. To clarify, I don't think there's anything wrong with stubs per se(although there's a whole school of thought out there on the wiki that hates them). On the other hand, I do think that as a measure of your contributions here, writing a few stubs doesn't really put you in a position to be trying to tell other people how to do a job that you yourself aren't doing (ie - how to structure and lay out the full-fledged aircraft articles).


 * I agree with you that some of the aircraft articles are a little over-long and over-detailed for a general encyclopedia like this one. Heinkel He 112 springs to mind - but I don't think the time is yet right to start trimming.


 * I did also sense that there was some issue about "ownership" of material happening here (Fikri's footer disappearing, text you've written reworded). But that's the nature of the wiki - as the edit page announcement puts it, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly... then don't submit it here". For many people, the hardest part of the wiki experience is letting go of what they've written. The sanest approach to it (that I've seen a few people spell out here and there) is to regard it as a compliment - it means that someone else is interested enough in what you've written and shares your interest in a topic enough to want to work on it too.


 * If I can also be completely frank and forthright - I think we both know that the longer articles you've contributed tend to leave a lot to be desired in terms of style and presentation. I don't mean that in any way to dissuade you from contributing more of them - but when you do, you really do have to expect that others are going to quickly jump in and "fix" them. I'll go out on a limb here and say that if when you contribute longer articles, if you think of them more as seeds that are going to get other people fired up and editing, the wiki experience will become a happier and happier experience for you...


 * Early flying machines was an interesting exception - a much more substantial article, and largely devoid of many of the mechanical (spelling, grammar) errors that are typical of your work. It looked much much more polished, and I suspect that this one was actually put together on a word-processor and checked (originally a school or college report?) before being cut-and-pasted here. You might find that a similar approach would stand you in good stead in other articles too. I'll also sing your praises once again as to the work you do on lists and tables - as the original contributor of list of aircraft of the Israeli Air Force, I'll quickly admit that your revamp of it is vastly superior in presentation to what I put there.


 * Wikipedia is a community - and in most human communities, people tend to gravitate towards specialising in things (are you familiar with the idea of comparative advantage in economics? - I think it is relevant to the wiki experience...) Bobblewik has chosen to make standardising units his/her "thing". I'm drawn towards writing in connected prose and in obsessing over how we present the information we're presenting. I can only encourage you to think about where your talents lie with regard to the wiki.


 * Heh - that's quite an essay. But on to the matter at hand:


 * We agree that type designation can go.


 * We agree that Comparable Aircraft can go, but that this is actually a better name for the row that's in the standard footer.


 * We agree that the "Primary Designation Sequence" is definitely valuable and worth keeping as the heart of a new footer.


 * I think your idea about the Design Bureaux is a great compromise. I can see two ways to implement it - either by
 * including links to lists of aircraft by manufacturers who've produced similar aircraft (so, tu-civ-trans should link to list of Antonov civil transport aircraft, list of Ilyushin civil transport aircraft etc - but note that Sukhoi and Mikoyan-Gurevich have never produced aircraft in this class)
 * or, I think better (because it's lower maintenance), just including a link to list of Russian civil transport aircraft
 * Both of these solutions would preserve the hierarchy within the footer - ie, the lists linked to would be more specific ones than say list of airliners or list of Russian aircraft, both of which (being very general) would belong in the standard footer.


 * I'll dig my heels in over the NATO reporting name though - the footers are about navigation, not presenting information about the particular type per se and this doesn't seem to fit. Besides, the NATO reporting names (and Allied reporting names for Japanese aircraft) are POV issues for Wikipedia - they're worth including in the article because, as you say, people are familiar with them and will encounter these names elsewhere, but they're names that hostile forces "branded" these aircraft with - which is why the naming conventions on WP A have shied away from using them in article titles. If this was to go anywhere outside the first line of the article itself, I'd suggest that it would be more appropriate to the data table, but as you know, I also think that that's already over-stuffed.


 * Like I said a few hundred words back (!) I think we're close to a resolution here - something I don't think that a mindless edit war would have brought us... Cheers --Rlandmann 00:59, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I'll try and be brief this afternoon for a change! and confine my comments to the two specific footer categories we're trying to reach compromise on:


 * Manufacturer lists - If I understand correctly, you're suggesting that instead of (for example) linking to list of Antonov civil transport aircraft, the footer could just link to the Antonovs in the existing list of aircraft airliner section? I agree that's by far the most elegant solution, but for some reason, this feature isn't working well in wiki at the moment - clicking on such a link will actually just dump the reader to the top of the list of aircraft. Apart from that, I think that the days of that big list are probably getting to be numbered anyway - whilst it's still of a manageable size for now, it's getting increasingly difficult to actually find anything on it. I think we really need at least a 2-way split between civil and military sooner rather than later.


 * List of airliners will probably eventually be its own list (it just redirects to the main list for now) but, I feel, is too broad for the "close relatives" footer - this belongs in the standard footer (where it is already anyway...)


 * Bottom line - I have a slight preference that this goes to list of Russian civil transport aircraft, but have no problem with it going to list of Antonov civil transport aircraft and list of Ilyushin civil transport aircraft. Either way, if you tell me you're happy with either of them, I'll create appropriate lists straight away, and develop a similar footer that can go on the Ilyushins and Antonovs that we already have articles on.


 * NATO reporting name - My problem with this being in the footer is not primarily the POV issue - it's the issue of using the footer to present or summarise information rather than just provide navigation. I fully agree that this information should be prominently displayed in the article however - I wasn't suggesting that it should be "written out of history". Many of the NATO reporting names are indeed well-known (sometimes better than the designation) but many are quite obscure. With your agreement to leave it out of the footer, I'll go through each and every Soviet and Japanese aircraft we have articles on an ensure that this information is prominently in place in the article, hopefully meaning that my desire to see this left out of the footer and your desire to make sure this information is clearly included are both met.


 * As an aside, I suspect another source of friction here may be that you are perhaps more a visual person, where I am definitely more of a words person - In light of that, I'll ask specifically whether either of these is an acceptable solution to you:

1

2


 * Note that Antonov, Ilyushin, Tupolev, and Yakovlev are the only design bureaux that worked on aircraft of this type (a few others had projects that stalled, or are currently working on them). Let me know what you think - I'm keen for us to wrap this up so we can both switch attention to engine table issues and also draw up some different templates from the main data table.


 * I also hear what you're saying about the value of being able to implement as much as possible via mediawiki and either of the options above could easily be done this way. I don't think this will ever be possible with the data table or standard footer though.


 * Another idea about "stepping releases", though - perhaps we can create a page in WPA to keep track of suggested changes (such as changing "designation series" to "designation sequence" and "similar aircraft" to "comparable aircraft") and once every couple of months hold a poll to see which should be implemented. Just the beginnings of an idea to make sure that we keep refining our approach but keeping the project from being in a constant state of flux... Cheers --Rlandmann 06:31, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't see why you say "1 was already rejected" - did you note that this was different from the first tu-civ-trans box in that it provided a link to a list specifically of Russian civil transport aircraft? That link (or the links to specifically Antonov and Ilyushin civil transports) were offered in place of the design bureaux, and as I said, I'm prepared to put the work in to make it work as long as it will keep the general design bureaux links out of that footer.


 * "Related Variants (civil)" is completely superfluous - this information is already contained in the Similar Aircraft row of the standard footer. If anything, this would be ideal material for the "subtypes" box discussed some time ago, since this is basically how Soviet/Russian designations work.


 * We went through this footer *line by line* until we distilled it down to the couple of rows still causing contention, and now you go and fill the thing up again.... I guess we're back to square one. :( -Rlandmann 23:32, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The "See also" was offered as a way of turning the Design Bureaux line into something that made sense. Far from being simply a matter of personal taste, I simply can't see the logic of wanting to link a specific aircraft type to an article about a completely unrelated designer. As I've said, it's like insisting that Boeing 747 needs a direct link to Northrop, or that VW Beetle needs a direct link to Holden. I do take your point that, at the moment, many of the manufacturer pages are dominanted by lists, which is why I was offering to actually go and create more tightly focussed lists that would let these navigational elements make sense. As I see it, you're arguing that the design bureaux line should stay in there because


 * a) most of the articles are predominated by lists at this point in time (I've offered an alternative solution to this) and
 * b) because you think that since Fikri contributed the article, his original idea of what should go in the footer needs to somehow be protected.

If there's some other reason you want to link specific aircraft to unrelated manufacturers, please clarify it for me...

You still seem to be having problems with "ownership" of articles - Fikri had every right to contribute whatever he wanted in those articles - and I or you or anybody else has every right to change it to anything at all - for whatever reason, or no reason. This isn't about "rights" - this is about standardising articles within the framework of a WikiProject. The only reason we're having this debate at all is to prevent a mindless edit war - if I felt reasonably certain that you wouldn't just keep reverting them, I'd have just gone ahead and implemented a solution long ago. Fikri's status as an aviation professional give his opinion no more and no less weight when it comes to issues of layout and navigation, whereas, of course, it makes him very qualified to speak out on issues of terminology, common usage, and of course, factual information about whatever branch of aviation he's involved in.

I guess the best thing to do now is to outline our positions carefully, because you're right - beyond this there is only mediation - and if you thought that dealing with me has been a drawn-out and painful process, then you've seen nothing yet. I really hope that it won't go that far, because frankly I don't want to invest the time and energy, especially since we seem close to some kind of compromise just on our own. I also note that you only seem to recognise compromise when it's you who's doing the compromising, so - my position:


 * 1st preference - the tu-civ-list box that I implemented and you reverted. I think this option has the greatest potential for further development into something useful project-wide.


 * 2nd preference - no additional footer at all. I think that, while elements like this hold promise for the future, it will be a long time before this kind of intra-Project navigation becomes necessary. I think that links to other closely related types


 * 3rd preference - the tu-civ-list box with the heading turned into a link to a general list of Russian civil transport aircraft. (option 1 from recently)


 * 4th preference - the tu-civ-list box with links to lists of other related bureaux's similar aircraft. (option 2 from recently)

Beyond that, I'm still willing to negotiate on most points, but will not accept any version that includes:


 * the designation of the aircraft itself as an independent element - this is redundancy at its very worst.


 * the NATO reporting name - a footer (any Wikipedia footer) is not the place to include new data or summarise the article - it's a navigation tool.


 * links to other variants of the aircraft - this belongs in the Variants box (as discussed on the data table discussion page of WP A). Moreover, this duplicates the "Related Development" line of the standard footer.

My greatest concern is to keep things as simple and as standardised as possible. Other WPs are becoming a maze of footers, but the situation here is even worse, since we're talking about footers that need to be implemented manually rather than through Mediawiki. Standards should be clear enough so that new contributors to the project can very quickly pick them up and implement them in a consistent fashion. The more complexity that's added, the less likely this becomes.

Please likewise spell out your preferences, "not negotiables" and rationale. I still hope we can sort this out soon. --Rlandmann 04:43, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Bureaux - since you say that you're only concerned with this linking to other Russian aircraft - are you willing to have this link just to lists of aircraft by other Russian design bureaux? Why are you insisting that this has to link to all other aircraft manufacturers - even ones who didn't build any even vaguely similar aircraft?


 * Useful information - as long as variants are covered in a variants box and the NATO reporting names are correctly in place at the start of the article, are we losing any useful information by going with the second option I suggested the other day? I've volunteered to actually go do this work...


 * As you say - there are a variety of things that we agree, disagree, and agree to differ on - that's why I hoped you could state a few preferences. I still believe that there has to be some sort of middle ground acceptable to us both - as you say, it's just 9 pages. I guess that my willingness to pursue the point is because I think that whatever comes out of this will pretty much set the precedent for how series within WikiProject Aircraft should be handled in the near future.


 * I'm just asking you to be open about what you'd prefer to see here, so that we know where the goalposts actually are. --Rlandmann 08:14, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, please state your position here and we'll get formal dispute resolution going. --Rlandmann 09:12, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Grey comments related to footer in RL talk

 * RL I thought our debate on the footer was going well. I am thouroughly dissapointed with your last comment. I was disgusted by its vauge reference to other resolved incidents, what appears an attempt to broaden the scope of debate, and -most damaging- a false personal accusation. It was a proverbial 'slap in the face' to me that nothing short of apology from you would resolve. Greyengine5 08:20, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I dont appreiciate your comments, nor your argument tactics. As much as I have enjoyed many of your articles, your the only user that has made the wiki a unpleasant experiece for me. I reccomend you overhall your discussion tactics, and avoid, in particular, expanding from the issue at hand or making personal comments. As for the footer, I made my stance clear on the page. I still think it was a good resolution, and, once again I am not 'against' any of the standards. As for finding 'non-stub' pages for you which I have indeed done, your welcome to find them yourself. I niether think thats a good measure of what people contribute, nor is it even acceptable to ask that. I have never, and would not require you to generate this as it would be a insult to you, and to the very nature of the wiki, aside from wasting time.Greyengine5 22:03, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Endless vauge insults, shifting of issues, inflammatory comments- this what I was recommending you change. Your response contains many things that-to borrow a phrase I 'predicatably disagree' with. You say you are not concerned with how 'pleasant' you are- I hope you change from this attitude.  To say I need to 'find another project to monkey around with' is a inflammatory and disrespectfull comment. To suggest I have a double standard for 'wiki freedom' is also false, as, when issues arise a fair comprimise is reached- something that I have even done with you. As for content issues with the footer etc.- as you've been pointing out its clear we are partly victims of commonly held differing views- deltionist vs inclusionist etc. I think its fine to continue with comprimises as we'v done, though they must be reached sooner and with less wasted time,effort, etc.. Greyengine5 02:48, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Just to round things out- thanks for the complement. Pehaps we can work on standards for general data tables as well? Greyengine5 03:16, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I dont expect you to temper- Im not one to hold grudges anyway. If its done, its over, and if we could just work in peace together on aircraft that would be compensation enough. I do need to clear up what I think is misunderstanding, though. I don't want to change the current footer (or the table)- its done (at least not for a long time(change it that is)). The tuplev thing was about creating a new, more specialzed standard just for those pages. Just as one day the current air footer may just be a specialized subset of a 'transportation' footer, new footer/boxes could be a subset of it. To put things in perspective here, I had actually considered trying to go through an update to our current data table standard after seeing the wide range out there ( even beyond what been caused by tinkering).  Indeed your boldness is correct- I thourghly agree, and I have diverted much time into this. Speaking of which, you may be happy to know I have just converted the List of military aircraft of Japan and welcome any work/ideas as you suggest. One idea, I noticed your work with japanese characters- perhaps we can get japanese character in there as well. I also thought it might be better to split it to before ww2 and after so it would be easier to inlcude codenames, or things like numbers lost to enemy fire. I have little doubt that airpages can become the most standardized, comprhensive, organized, data set of the whole wiki. Greyengine5 07:00, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Btw, in case you wondering, yes I had been working on the jap page for a couple hours before you suggested the concept- your comment reaffirmed the usefullnes of that sort of thing to me thoguh. Im going to try and add in the japanese character for pages that have them listed- in case you wanted to add some more as well. As for my tendancy not to write full articles- I'v made few attempts to write longer text for new pages, but I'v shayed away since my text got rewritten or totally replaced. As result I keep it text to minimum to aviod having this sort of experience. As for the tup footer, I like your tup series box, but I also like the one on that page and I think both full good niche. I prefer the series box idea to creating a whole 'nother footer (like th air box thing) in general, but in this case I wanted to keep what fikri worked on- and I thought it may have some potential in its own right. If you want to develop more of these series boxes I'll be happt to help you distribute them, as this is just what I had wanted to to after totally general air-list box- (create more specific boxes for sub-groups). Well I hope that further clears things up. Greyengine5 18:12, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Just you give you and update here and 'discussion methods'. I highly reccomend you shift away form protracting discussions. It wastes yours and my time, better spent on aircraft ,etc. Are comprimises perfect?- no but I think its important to aviod this endless continuations drawing these things out, or at least give it rest for some time. Notably, as I'v mentioned before- changing to other issues, personal criticisms, and re-starting/raising issue with things that have already been comprimised on are extending things far beyond neccesary. For new footer, just to reiterate, I did not want to change the basic footer. I am interested in new footer/boxes like the tup footer or your tup-air-civ thing. Seperate from this, I put some thoughts on the engine table there, as asked me about before.  Greyengine5 22:16, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Well I reccomend you distill down what exactly the problem is so we can resolve it. These protacted debates are unacceptable. Greyengine5 22:57, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but protacted debates are still not acceptable. The amount of my time you'v wasted with them, the personal insults, etc. have been unwelcome to say the least. I didn't make the footer, fikri did. I know you have problems with it, that what we disagree on. Tell you what, change a standard footer to what you think it should be on those pages (as it was different from the actual design intially anyway). The only reason I touched that std. footer design in the 1st place was to comply with your problem with duplicate material- so I merged 'similar aircraft' row. While your at it make 'fikri-footer' modified to your satisfaction and we'll see where were at then. Greyengine5 04:12, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Disccussion about the footer details should probably take place on the footer page. (for our future reference)


 * If you get out in the world, you'll understand that saying lies about people is considered insulting.


 * Your the only person I'v had problems resolving issues with. I'v noticed you'v had some problems with other people as well. I think your the problem here, or at least your methods.


 * How many times must I say I support the standard footer! I support the standard footer Feel free to update them to maximum spec.


 * How many time must I say I like your tup-civ-box idea! I like your tup-civ-box idea. I have things just like this in mind for other pages.


 * Fikri is an aviation proffesional and he crafted his own footer for a group of pages. I think it can co-exist with our project standards without weakening it. Just as the data table is unique to airplanes, his footer can be unique to those aircraft.


 * While I actually agree with the majority of your technical points, replacing fikri's footer with tup box(essentially fikri's cut to one line of info) is tanamount to elimnating it altogether. When the main thing Im arguing for is its continued exisitance, this should be predictably unacceptable.


 * My earlier question remains- what modifications, other then replacing it with 1 line msg, to his footer would make it acceptable? Greyengine5 06:24, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * It was a liitle more then just that, but I'v lost track of the number personal accusations you incorporate into a normal disscussion. Some you'v redacted so I'll cut you some slack. As for wrting a full page, I'v worked on many parts of pages, sections. For non-stubs that I'v created, there are few, as I stated earler in two cases much of what I had done was rewritten so I have since shyed away from putting a lot work into writing a new page, and generally stick to shorts or adding sections in that area. The Dornier Do 10 while not overly long, took a inordinate amount of time to research and was by no means a stub. The Morane-Saulnier M.S.406 was under average, but longer then many others (this one was before the data-tables etc). This one was entirely rewritten, quite frustating given that its among just a handfull of the othter ww2 french types that are done-but such is how the wiki is.(partly why I hated to see fikri stuff reverted, I hate to see peoples work dissapear(i.e npov usefull content,etc). On the shorter side P-2 Neptune(since added to), and few other scattered about. Going back to inclusion verse deltist, I actually favor shorter articles for most craft- short and to the point, at least till more pages even have a article. For big types or after more are done, thats when it make sense- of course the state of articles varies wildly as its depedendent n whatever people want to put articles for. To get back back to the issue at hand,- the footer. I was never to fond of the type desgination, though I did find the term use interesting so lets cut that out then. Similair aircraft can go either place. I put it in the fikri, to aviod loosing the 'comparable' name. Perhaps that similair can be supplanted at some point comparable as you suggested, though it probably doesn't matter much either way. So that can just be part of the standard footer then.  Bureas and codename I do quite like however. For them I propose turning the burea name into links to lists of there repective company aircrafts- so you could quicky jumpt to all the sukhoi aircraft rather then just a company article. I think there's real benfit to being able to jump to other russian planes, and that probably makes more sense then just linking to there company pages. As for codename, I would like to see this turned into a row as well so you can between them by there nato- codenames. There's alot of people who know these planes by there codenames, and, I though it was kind of interesting naming convention. Well let me know what you think of this- I hope better then what we'v come up so far. As I stated earlier, I would vastly prefer working away peacefully on pages with you then all this endless bickering back and forth. I could have written several full articles for the amount of time diverted into this! Greyengine5 18:22, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Whoa lot of stuff there- just to clarify MS 406 was the most text I can find off hand, and was not a stub. Early flying machines was off the cuff, and for the rest- some hits and some misses, not really worth getting into. As for the footer, Ill just jump to remaning issues. Rather then turning burueas into links to specific lists(lot of work as u mention) or just one link, how bout just links to spots on the bigger list(using that code feature). Either a list of russian aircraft or the airliners- I haven't checked whats how there in terms of lists. Civ. versus milt is not so important I think with russian planes since a lot of those 'civilian' planes were duel use anway(not that other planes aren't). Either that or a whole 'russian' list box could be made to link to all those things mentioned there, though this same content could probaly jsu tbe incoroporated into the footer.


 * As for codename, you raise some good points and I half agree. However, I think it needs to stay in some form. These codenames are much more synonomous with these airplanes- many times the only name mentioned in books and media, so it goes beyond just offering content, but catering to how these planes have been refered to. In recognition of this and other ideas that could be gathered in there support, but also recognizing the 'mixed bag' it is for them to be there- I propose yet another compromise. The category is kept, but rather then listng all the codenames (which run into pov), just the one for that aircraft and two links- one to a article talking about codenames, and another to page listing nato/russian codenames. I think at some point, whether or not people find things pleasant to recongnize, many aircraft were part of wars and codenames part of that. Correctly reporting history is a stand this project needs to make. If we can get the russian codenames for Nato planes, I'd be all for that as well. Codenames for aircraft of the cold war are especially important as some owe there whole existance to a craft known only by secret names. I understand why your against it, and in many ways it would be easy for me to agree- but it strikes me as wrong to let it slide. It seems like a revision of history not to recognize the nature of of the planes and there 'many names'- to minimize them to just a brief mention. The compromise I think makes it more acceptable, since it moves away from suggesting that its a 'NATO' article. (althought the soviets did keep an active interest in nato codenames of there aircraft as well).


 * Yes I agree we might just be nearing the end (*gasp). I will suggest, that while this may be prefferable to true edit war, there is third option to even discussing it. A visual discussion, where we pass a design back and forth till its acceptable- rather then using a 'thousand words' it might just be easier to work on the design. Well- just a thought anyway.


 * Attempt at a summary (not related to the idea I just said btw)


 * Design Bureau- turned into links to manufacturers (of the same list-using code)
 * Type Designation- Tupolev Tu-204  (your out)
 * Related Variants- (civil) Tu-206 - Tu-216  (never a issue)
 * Nato codename- (tbd-see above)(just 1, name links to page on codenames)
 * Primary Designation- (not a issue)
 * Comparable Aircraft- moved to standard footer; 'comparable' kept on drawing boards as potential replacement name.
 * Related Lists- (moved to standard; even more customized list links?)

On whole nother note, I have interesting idea- if and when any revision are made to a footer, I propose replacing as much as possible with msg's to escape the improvement versus distributon paradox. Having air content be in line with proffesional aviation definitions is good long term goal, as any constructed definition is going to lack defintions.

Finally - RL thanks for your complements.

- Greyengine5 02:55, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Allright, with it being easter I'll keep this short as well. Visual vs text - its whatever the sitituation demands, in seemed like a good idea since the end game is a box with links in it. Ok 1 has was already rejected, and you'v forgot a lot in 2. . Given all the problems lets just leave them as links to the bureas, and let the details of the transport link can be worked out later. I'll agree to your nato deal if you'll let the links to design bureas's stay. As for civ- vis milt given that some 'transports' had glazed noses and most of these fucntioned as military transport as well I dont see to much of problem. Also, most of the company pages have list of there respective aircraft so its no just company info being linked to. Just like anything in wiki, its just a steping stone to something better- so I fully agree its time to move on.


 * Footer2


 * Ok this thing isn't going to be a 1 line msg. You never said related variants was a problem. Your 'see also' is neat but it could be in the standard ft, or left out. Look, my offer stands- Ill trade your nato designation offer(gone) for design bureas(kept). I can appreciate your desire for it to be for linking not content providing, npov, etc. However, you'v demonstrated you dont have a problem with intra-wiki footers for groups- so at this point its just a debate over the degree of content(which will end up changing anyway). If you dont have problem with linking to lists of aircraft then it makes no sense not to link to the other bureas, which are mostly just lists at this point.


 * If you just 'don't like it' thats not enough as, fikri has just as much right to customize those pages as anyone else, just as surely as we have right to have the project. That he's a avitaion proffestional adds even more value to a contibution. Iv given a lot of ground here- some deserved- some to be 'conciliatory', but your going to need more cogent arguments to convince me further.


 * Iv noticed that you'v removed personal criticisms,stuck to the issue at hand, etc. with your last response. I totally applaud this growth as I think it will benfit both you and especially the wiki. (I cant stress enough how much this is appreciated). The fact remains however, that this sort thing would have taken a small fraction of time for me to resolve with anyone else. I'v been willing to invest a lot of time as matter of courtsey and responsibility (as have you) in sorting this out, but its fast become an unreasonable amount.


 * In light of all table issues I think things have gone long enough to transition into a new 'track'. We could table the issue(put it aside) or move up the reccommend hierarchy of dispute mediation. Im not totally sure where things lie now, but I think we need a mediator (do these have to be admins?) for some input, or arbitration. Iv never had a problem like this before, but this seems to be what happens in these cases.


 * On the other issues you mention there, it all sounds quite good. The mediawiki concept as well as this idea for drafting releases for stepping sounds neat as well. I posted some various dribble there on the engine table page as well. In the meantime, as far as air pages go I'll try to work on more full pages and continue with tables. Also, for the piaggio, just 'piaggio avanti' turns up more google hits, but the manufacture released it as 'P-180 Avanti' (according to one book). I dont have a problem with it as avanti but we seem to stick to 'official' names. Mines as well wait till they releae another one I guess. Thats all, look forward to your inputs. Greyengine5 02:19, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I understand the nature of wiki contributions- the issue is maintaning usefull information and assessing its level of credability.
 * Bureas is just a way of linking to other russian planes- we already convered that it makes no difference to whether its to lists, places to a page with lists, etc. Whats important is all the names are there for ease of access.
 * Without going through all these things again, once again, some points I have no problem ceding, some I have disagree, and some I flat out agree.
 * Its been this way since I saw your first post.
 * Lets remeber this is not some all encompasing things here- its small custimized footer for nine pages. If this was happening all over the place, you might have more of case. Your talking about it like its this is going to go everywhere and will ruin the whole project.  I reccomend we just put it to vote on the airproject page, and be done with it. Greyengine5 06:03, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

1
Fikri modified the standard footer along these lines in a number of articles contributed by her/him on Tupolev airliners:

2
In this case, the standard footer would simply have read as follows, and Rlandmann modified it accordingly (in the specific case of this particular aircraft, accidentally omitting the types that should have been included in "Related Development", which are now included):

3
As an attempted compromise, Greyengine5 put Fikri's footer back on the page, along with her/his own modified version of the standard footer.

4
As a different compromise, Rlandmann replaced the standard footer, and created a new box in Mediawiki to replace the navigation lost when removing the modified footer.

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

5
Greyengine5 reverted this back to what s/he had there before, with the exception of using a similar Mediawiki element in the customised footer.

Another summary
The edits 1-5 as they were on the page without any commentary. 6b is the view of Grey.

4
&lsaquo;The template below has been proposed for deletion. See [/wiki/:Templates_for_deletion#Template: templates for deletion] to comment and vote.&rsaquo;

6b
Both RL and Grey agree this should be the standard footer on the page. Other standard footers placed were due to mistakes/misunderstandings and what was on page initially.