Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/General

Wikiproject Sample Page
No such page exists for aircraft as standards are still in flux. Also, since the best way to illustrate a given aircraft varies, such a page may never be completed. This is in part to due often confused nature of aircraft models and long developments, the best format for a given group of related planes varies. Currently a standard table for a single model and type of an aircraft is the limit of standardization. Greyengine5 04:26, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to nominate the Messerschmitt Me 163 page. It has a very complete data table, covers the Development, Operational history, and Variants of the aircraft very clearly and very well.

The sample for any Wikiproject is never going to hold true for every article that project covers, but I don't think that the layout of aircraft articles gets much better than this one (even if the text probably needs a copyedit to even it out a little). It also has the advantage of being a relatively straightforward type to document, unlike planes with a longer, more complicated history such as the Supermarine Spitfire (another well-laid out page, but more complex than the Me 163]] --Rlandmann 23:43, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the Me-163 article is well written. However, I think that, at least for military aircraft, we need to add more data at the bottom of the page. As you might have seen, at the bottom of some of the articles that I have written, I have added a list of the units that used the aircraft where known.

Above the list of units using the aircraft, I would also say that we need a list of the variants. With aircraft with very few variants like the Me-163, it is possible to have a small amount of text about each variant on the main page. However, with aircraft like the Spitfire, Canberra or Mosquito, with upwards 15 variants, I would say that cannot reasonably be done. Therefore just having a list of variants, perhaps with a small amount of text after the name of the variant listing what made it different from the other variants.

So, from the top of the article, we first need the data table, ideally fully filled in, with a picture. The table may well need additions or subtractions from the standard version to accommodate differences. For example, with jet aircraft, we need to refer to an engine's thrust rather than its power. With military aircraft, we may well need more weapons cells, to cover things like guns, bombs, torpedoes and mines. After the table, we obviously need a general introduction to the aircraft, covering in general terms its role, time period and level of success.

The Me-163 article has a portion on design next, which would be nice to have for most aircraft. Then a bit more detail on the operational use of the aircraft would probably be a good idea. Finally, lists of variants and units using the aircraft (for military aircraft, perhaps a list of companies using them for airliners) should probably be in place. David Newton 17:41, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Since Wiki is not paper I don't see why we shouldn't have detailed info on every version of Spitfire, say. However, they can be on separate pages, if having it in the main article would make things too long.  Either a page entitled something like Spitfire variants or one per version if we have enough. &mdash;Morven 21:07, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Agreed that the data table needs to be tweaked for different aircraft, but this will always be the case anyway. Agreed also that particularly prolific types will eventually need to be broken down into subpages. I think we might have to think through the best way to present unit data (for airliners, this might be links to airlines). For rarer types, this can comfortable done on the page itself, but for more widely-used types, the unit list will quickly overwhelm the article (see the A-4 Skyhawk page for an example). Past some point, this list might also be better on a separate page just to avoid the clutter --Rlandmann 16:15, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

So, returning to the original question - can anyone think of a better "sample page" to show off as an example of the Wikiproject? --Rlandmann 16:17, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think its a good choice and has my vote. Variants can use that same format anyway for there own pages, oddball aircraft will always require non-standard formats, and even more techincal in-depth specifications can be put on a different page. So I don't see a problem there. The only changes I'd like to see are the use of a different color backround since some other online pedia's use that same color- but thats a minor issue. Also as things advance, improvents can be incorporated into the sample page anyway should the need arise.

Greyengine5 00:56, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Units Using {Aircraft}
Is there a good way to standardize this information? Look at F-4 Phantom II to see what I'm talking about. As it stands right now, it's a very large, ugly list (with lots of holes). Are there any suggestions for the best way to standardize this information and make it prettier (with each nation's Air Force roundel and what not)? Anybody? Bueller? If no one has any thoughts, I'll work on a mock-up idea. (I may do this anyway.) RadicalBender 20:59, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd be interested in your ideas for presenting this. Right now we don't even have articles for pretty much any air force unit worldwide ... &mdash;Morven 23:42, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I question the need to have long lists of units on the main page itself - I suggest that List of units which have operated the F-4 Phantom II (or some less wordy alternative!) would be better. But either on the main page or a sub-page, some sort of standard way of presenting this data would be nice. --Rlandmann 05:23, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Somewhere in the last week or two of categorising, I came across one or two entries that presented the list of units in a neat table. I can't for the life of me remember what articles they were, though! I have a feeling that they were British aircraft of around the time of the Second World War... Does anyone have any idea of what I'm talking about? I thought that this layout would make an excellent standard to adopt for this info. --Rlandmann 08:03, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * OK - answered my own question - it's in Bristol Blenheim. Great work! Anyone have any problem with this bring rolled out more widely? --Rlandmann 08:08, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

List of years
Is there any interest or merit in doing a "year in aviation" (or "year in aerospace") series, like has been done for list of years in science, list of years in film, and so on? Geoff 22:46, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * As I recall, someone began one. There are, I believe, years through most of the 1980s defined. &mdash;Morven 23:41, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * So there is. Silly me.  Geoff 23:51, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * However, feel free to get this going again! &mdash;Morven 01:14, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Units order
I dont care which set of units come first, but I oppose having two standards. As I per any major change like this it must at least go through some sort of review eitehr way. Greyengine5 23:43, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * It's not a change - it's been the reality of the data tables for a while. The templates are just a tool to help implement the already existing standard. I originally suggested this as "best practice" back in late February, and I and others have implemented both "imperial first" and "metric first" tables consistently ever since.


 * You yourself have edited the project page dozens of times over those six weeks and have never taken exception to this until now.


 * Of course, if others here feel that we should go back to a single metric-first or imperial-first table, then by all means we should. For now, however, this accurately reflects what's going on "in the field".


 * To me, when listing the specifications of an aircraft, it makes sense to express them in the units that the machine was designed in. But it's not a big deal.


 * Other opinions? --Rlandmann 03:20, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Its because I dont think either row is "better", the proper way could just as easily be reveresed. That and this 'standard' has not been uniformly done. Greyengine5 15:18, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Rlandmann. It should probably list first the units the machine was designed in. This is similar to whether or not articles should use "humor" or "humour." The general consensus is for English articles to use the English spelling and not otherwise. I think we should use the same here. R ADICAL B ENDER ★  16:38, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Very well then- it will be perpetuated. The issue here was thats its not worth having two different orders when the number listed first aren't in better spot then then second. I would be just as happy if metric was listed first for all of the tables. (or all the other way) Greyengine5 17:55, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It would be nice to be clear about which units provide the raw data. But even if we know the raw data, I don't think we will really be able to indicate this clearly. When we use parentheses, the reader can sometimes think that the author puts the raw data outside the parentheses. Although it is not a reliable indication. I often see parentheses used merely to contain the authors non-preferred units.

Our decision to divide the columns into metric and non-metric means that we cannot indicate the raw data simply by putting one column before the other. This is because specifications are rarely 100% metric or 100% non-metric. In addition, wikipedia authors (including myself) are sometimes misinformed about the raw data.

It is an interesting question, but I don't have an easy answer. We might wish to have a default suggestion (my preference is metric first too, although there are other strategies) but I am fairly happy to leave it undefined as we do with spelling. Bobblewik 18:32, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Indeed, a good many aircraft have some components designed or specified in more than one system of measurement. However, I prefer the de facto standard of using Imperial/US measurements first for those aircraft built in the USA and Britain, since that is what people expect and what will be found in official publications about them.  Wikipedia's role is not to convert the United States to the metric system. &mdash;Morven 18:56, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I would not have considered having a standard division by nation. It might have had some relevance for aircraft half a century ago (although a lot of pages refer to old designs), but it is not a relevant distinction today. You might argue that metric goes second for for British aircraft up to 19xx and goes first after that date, but it all gets a bit complicated.


 * Many aircraft that are considered as American are very metric because of a pro-metric stance of the manufacturer (the US military often specifies metric, and manufacturers use metric to make foreign sales easier). Some supposedly American aircraft are direct purchases from 'metric countries' (e.g. HH-65 Dolphin), or are copies (e.g. the US T6A Texan is a copy of the Swiss Pilatus PC9).


 * Then there is the issue of collaborative projects which almost certainly use metric by default. That is not so common for the US, but it is very common with the UK.


 * The use of metric in British aircraft factories is now more similar to European usage than to USA usage. If you think of aircraft such as the Tornado, Jaguar, Puma, Gazelle, Eurofighter, Merlin, Airbus etc, I would have thought that a UK table would have the same order as their German and French counterparts.


 * I would also suggest that British people of today are so exposed to metric units, particularly for official/military/engineering applications, that I can't support a hypothesis that metric priority would be considered odd in Britain.


 * There may well be an assumption in the minds of some people that the distinction between metric and non-metric can be mapped onto the distinction between USA/UK and the rest of the world. However, in reality the correlation is so poor as to be futile and has been for decades. Even if you said it was a distinction between US aircraft and non-US aircraft then I would not agree, but might be less adamant about it.


 * Anyway, although I think nationality is not a good basis for choice of column order, I don't really care much. So I will accept the choice of others. Bobblewik 14:36, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Just so that you know, you're wrong about the UK and metric units. I routinely use imperial units in everyday life, and I'm 24 and British. I know plenty of other people who do as well. In scientific work metric units are the standard for many, but not all. For example, the electron volt is not the SI unit of energy, and yet it is commonly used, the same with the Bohr radius as a unit of length. I consider putting a metric version of the British units odd. David Newton 04:07, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

--

In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft I removed the section stating that thrust to weight is unitless but it was reverted. My reason for removing it is that it is not unitless anymore than power to weight is. Thrust/weight is actually acceleration which can be easily demonstrated by arithmetic (F=ma), or by practical demonstration (try loading your car with 4 fat people and note the effect on acceleration). The identical unit names (pound force and pound mass ) misleads people to think that they are the same.

UtherSRG reverted the page (see history of the page), stating ''BW you are incorrect. in F=ma, m is mass, not weight'' I don't want to get in an edit war, or a debate about the ambiguity of the word 'weight' and the units kg or lb (I have seen plenty of these on the internet and they are tedious in the same way that I have no interest in arguing about the ambiguity of the word 'hot' for high temperature and large amount of heat). I don't care if an aircraft is said to be: thrust: y pounds weight: x pounds thrust to weight: z (units left off) but it won't work in metric units. The suggestion that metric authors should use kgf is not acceptable because the metric unit for force is the newton. thrust: x kN weight: y kg thrust to weight: z kN/kg(units shown)

The section is incorrect and I think it cannot be left in the present form. It certainly cannot reject the usage of kN/kg by metric countries. Are there any better suggestions than to simply delete the section again? Bobblewik 15:26, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Bobblewik, User:UtherSRG was right that you were incorrect. Thrust-to-weight is unitless. This is because thrust and weight are both forces. Specifically, the weight of an object is the force of gravity on it.


 * You also say "The suggestion that metric authors should use kgf is not acceptable because the metric unit for force is the newton.". This is misleading, because you seem to have confused metric units (those based on the meter) with SI units - they aren't the same thing, for example the second is an SI unit but not as metric unit, and the erg is a metric unit but not an SI unit. The newton is the SI unit of force, and a metric unit of force. The kilogram force (kgf) isn't an SI unit of force, but it is a metric unit of force. It is also an established unit for denoting the thrust of aero engines, and as such is used by reference books on aircraft. -- Cabalamat 17:37, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * "Weight will be kg" doesn't sit right with me. Thrust-to-weight is dimensionless regardless of which side of the ocean you live on.  In fact if it were up to me, I would either rename the "Weights" table section "Mass," or specify weights in "lbf" or "N", but this would ruffle a lot of feathers. Fleminra 21:48, 28 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Understandable trumps pedanticism. This means that weights will be specified in kg.  Thrust to weight will be unitless.  We have been using kN for thrusts, but I would not be opposed to using kgf (and annotating it as plain 'kg', too) since this is what is found in most reference works.  And yes, we all know that all of this is pedantically incorrect, but it is comprehensible and we all really do also understand what is MEANT. &mdash;Morven 03:41, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Someone knowledgeable about MiG history might want to check contributions of a newbie. He is "moving" articles about MiGs from "Mikoyan-Gurevich" to "Mikoyan" without any explanation and by copy-pasting them. Nikola 07:19, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mailing list anybody?
Am I the only one who finds it difficult to navigate the discussions here? What do people think of setting up an email list for the project (open to all), with discussions archived here on a regular basis? --Rlandmann 00:02, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, a web-board? --Rlandmann 08:00, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm new, but that makes a heck of a lot more sense than this mishmash.eric 05:10, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes AND no. Yes, because Wikipedia talk pages are a PITA to use for in depth discussion.  No, because decisions are then being made 'off line' by a select group rather than in the open.  Archiving mailing list discussions here would go part way (but not all the way) to solving this.  However, I'd say that it would certainly help improve the quality of the articles, which is the main thing. &mdash;Morven 16:08, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with Morven's comments regarding a possible mailing list: it would promote the existence of a "cabal" who wouldn't necessarily always act in the open. It'd be nice if talk pages included a web forum where one could make threaded comments; perhaps  the mediawiki software could be updated to include this? -- Cabalamat 16:27, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, I *had* worried about the "cabal" aspect - which is why I suggested religiously archiving discussion here. Secondly, since the "cabal" would be made up of the people who actually make regular contributions to a small and well-defined subject area. I'll wait a couple more days for comment, but put in a feature request in the meantime. --Rlandmann 21:05, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You are kidding, right? Email lists are a dreadful hangover of an outdated era. The technology became obsolete close to 10 years ago, and its usability these days is severely limited. Why on earth would anyone volunteer to subject themselves to a mailing list when there are vastly better communication methods at their fingertips? Methods that are open to all, I might add. I'd rather use Netscape 1.0 on Windows 3.1 than inflict yet another mailing list on my poor overloaded, spam-ridden inbox. A wiki is to a mailing list as an Airbus A340 is to an Avro Lancastrian. Tannin 21:22, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Personally I'd take the Avro, becauese older is generally cooler, but that's mostly beside the point. Just about any system would be preferable to what is currently in place. -eric 21:35, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Point taken. I'm thinking that a web-based forum would be far better - in terms of providing the threading that seems to be the main problem with the "butcher's paper" approach we have now, and in terms of linking to and from the wiki. I sincerely hope that we can get a threaded forum implemented here within the pedia, but I don't think it's too bad a thing to have it hosted elsewhere, at least in the interim. --Rlandmann 21:40, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * It's a shame that such 'outdated' technology still works better -- with a properly functioning client, something that most fail to produce -- than most of the 'newer' alternatives. I find my email lists quite usable indeed, compared to many of the alternatives.


 * However, I do believe that Wikipedia needs to have better support for threaded discussion. This is possibly the #1 most needed feature for the software, IMO.  If we're suggesting mailing lists, Tannin, it's because at least they work fairly easily and well by comparison.


 * I also prefer the permanent record of email; malicious or just plain nutty people can easily lay a false trail of confusion through the Wikipedia record, and while sure, we have article history, for any discussion forum of reasonable activity, that's too painful for anyone sane to deal with. &mdash;Morven 07:16, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

Variants?
I've poked around looking for information on variants (prompted by the three entries for various similar Lancair Columbia models) and couldn't find whether it was preferred to merge them into one article (i.e. Lancair Columbia) or separate (Lancair Columbia 350, Lancair Columbia 400, etc). On a side-note, Rlandmann, I've changed the two aircraft you placed in the Category:Home-build aircraft to Category:Homebuilt aircraft to correspond more closely with the actual terms used in the General Aviation community. I'm planning to go through any other kit aircraft and add them over the next few days. -eric 16:28, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * There is no "policy" on this - for now, I think we're just happy to be getting articles! I think that length should be the determining factor here - and few variants are written up in sufficient depth (at the moment) to necessitate separate articles. If it were me, I'd be putting the article under Lancair Columbia with redirects from the variants until and unless any of them dominates the article to the degree where splitting it off seems better --Rlandmann 21:26, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Straw poll - Web forum (was mailing list)
Just a quick show of hands here - if a web-based forum were set up to discuss issues relevant to this WikiProject - who would be interested in participating? Please place your signature below by 00:00 1 August. --Rlandmann 09:44, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For it
 * Rlandmann 09:44, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * N328KF (Joseph) 13:34, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)
 * eric 15:55, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * ✈ James C. 17:50, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)
 * &mdash;Morven 23:16, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Not for it

Abstain
 * Bobblewik 13:31, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC) (I do not feel qualified to predict what I would do).
 * Greyengine5 15:12, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC) (although depending how it was done, i might be either for it or against it)
 * Cabalamat 19:58, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC) (I'm not sure whether I would be able/prepared to devote much time to it).

Comments/Questions:
Would this be on the wikipedia or on some third party site? Are we going to wait until the wikipedia has a forum feature or try and find some sort of free web forum- and if that, which one. Greyengine5 17:09, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)
 * it's been suggested that the talk pages be revamped, however i do not think this will happen soon. a simple off site forum could be made freely on tripod.lycos.co.uk using phpBB. ✈ James C. 17:50, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)


 * Ok well thats pretty reasonble, I changed my vote to 'abstain'. Depending on how it was actually done I think it could work well, though it might have some problems. I think if the forum had admins, I wouldn't want it to be people who were not wikipedia admins.
 * Also, if wiki ever comes up with a better forum system, I think it be important to be able transfer the history over. It might be worthwhile to see if any other projects have done this and get some input from them as well. Greyengine5 19:29, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)

If there are more votes in favour than against by the time the poll closes, I will be seeking an off-wikipedia forum to have this forum hosted. I'm open to suggestions, but my thinking is leaning towards Delphi forums - http://www.delphiforums.com largely because of their long-term stability.

Membership would be open to all, and a prominent link from this page to the external forum would be maintained. Discussion from the forum would be archived back here regularly (how regularly will depend on the traffic - weekly? monthly?

I'm not going to hold my breath until similar threaded discussions are available at wikipedia, but if and when this feature becomes available, the external forum would be shut down and discussion moved back here.

Finally, there's nothing more "sinister" about wikipedians using an external forum to discuss aspects of a project than if we were exchanging private email, or chatting via IRC or any other IM network (or meeting in person over a cup of coffee). In fact, a web forum ensures a transparency and accountability that none of those other modes of communication do. --Rlandmann 22:34, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * A quick look at delphi makes it look extremely full of ads. I'm inclined to go with James' phpBB suggestion, I've used it in the past and it works pretty well. I actually have (way too much) webspace available, along with a pretty short url. So, no ads, and no costs. I'd be glad to install it (actually I'll play around with it now, just for kicks.) -eric 23:50, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok, that literally took three minutes to set up (www.aeronaut.ca/wikiforum/), if you'd like to see how it runs and if it's preferable to the existing wiki talk or delphi forums. -eric 00:08, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * Does anyone have an in with anyone like airliners.net? Maybe they wouldn't mind us having a forum for ourselves, considering what we're doing ostensibly benefits them as well? I have a membership there already, dunno about the rest of you. -Joseph 03:13, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)


 * I checked out the phpbb one- seems pretty nice. I wonder if there's some GPL'd forum software wikipedia could incorporate in the future, so projects could have this hosted off wikipedia. In the meantaime though, is there a way to have this one send updates when somone posted a new comment there? Greyengine5 13:17, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)


 * So, it's settled, then? -Joseph 21:51, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)


 * Yes - I've just made a post there for anyone who cares to take a look --Rlandmann 23:09, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Standardized Title Formatting
This may be redundant, but I've poked around and didn't see any mention of it elsewhere: we need to have a standardized way of titling aircraft pages. I propose "Manufacturer Model Name", e.g. "De Havilland Canada DHC-3 Otter". For any aircraft that don't have a name (e.g. Messerschmitt Me 163) simply omit that. Likewise omit the model name for aircraft that don't have one. This might not be the most intuitive titling scheme, but it is the most complete and IMO the best. To account for its lack-of-intuitiveness, numerous redirects for each aircraft would have to be made, but that is fairly easy in wikipedia. Anyways, thoughts? -Lommer 05:31, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * See Naming conventions (aircraft) for the current standard. &mdash;Morven 07:31, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)