Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Specifications survey/Tally

The following are the hard results, followed by an explanation of how I came to my conclusions. I include the hard vote counts, but based my decisions on the discussions as well. The winning options have been enlarged.

Adopt a parametrised template

 * Yes: 12
 * No: 1

Consensus very obviously in favour of yes.

Presentation style

 * Infobox: 8
 * Text: 11 (52%)

Close, but the majority was in favour of retaining the current standard (text). To force a change supported by a minority is obviously wrong, so I text is the winner.

lb vs lbf (thrust units)

 * lb: 3
 * lbf: 9

Obviously strong support for lbf.

kgf (thrust)

 * Never include kgf measurements: 8
 * Include kgf whenever it can be reasonably assumed to have been the units that the measurement was originally taken in, but always include a conversion to kN: 3

The former is favoured strongly. Obviously consensus would be ideal, but I thought that I could slack a bit in this case, as the original kgf measurement can be cited using &#123;{Ref}} and &#123;{Note}}.

PS (power)

 * Never include PS measurements: 9
 * Include PS whenever it can be reasonably assumed to have been the units that the measurement was originally taken in, but always include a conversion to kW: 4

The former is favoured by a strong majority. Obviously consensus would be ideal, but I thought that I could slack a bit in this case, as the original kgf measurement can be cited using &#123;{Ref}} and &#123;{Note}}.

Units to be used for range

 * 1) Always miles only: 3
 * 2) Include whichever is in our source data, but always convert to the other: 4
 * 3) Use whichever can be reasonably assumed to have been the units that the measurement was originally taken in, but always include a conversion to the other: 1
 * 4) Use whichever can be reasonably assumed to have been the units that the measurement was originally taken in, but never include a conversion to the other: 1
 * 5) Use whichever can be reasonably assumed to have been the units that the measurement was taken in, and permit a conversion to the other: 3
 * 6) Use statute miles only if it can be reasonably assumed to have been the units that the measurement was originally taken in, but always include a conversion to nautical miles: 1

No consensus reached.


 * Here is my analysis of this vote, throwing out two illegal votes, leaving 13.
 * kilometers
 * 13 include (but the vote was poorly worded, and especially the 3 votes for number 1, saying "miles only", and perhaps others may not have read carefully this assumption)
 * statute miles
 * 3 require
 * 5 require unless kilometers are original
 * 4 permit + 1 permit only if original
 * nautical miles
 * 6 require unless kilometers are original
 * 3 permit + 1 permit only if original
 * 1 bar
 * But note that even if you pick the most popular for each unit, that doesn't mean that everybody would support always including all three units, if it were presented that way. Another problem is that not requiring one or the other, or both, of the miles when kilometers are the original, cannot be assumed because that issue wasn't specifically raised. Gene Nygaard 13:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Units to be used for speed

 * Always mph only: 2
 * Include whichever is in our source data, but always convert to the other: 4
 * Use whichever can be reasonably assumed to have been the units that the measurement was originally taken in, but always include a conversion to the other: 1
 * Use whichever can be reasonably assumed to have been the units that the measurement was originally taken in, but never include a conversion to the other: 1
 * Use whichever can be reasonably assumed to have been the units that the measurement was originally taken in, and permit a conversion to the other: 2
 * Use mph only if it can be reasonably assumed to have been the units that the measurement had been originally taken in, but always include a conversion to knots: 1

No consensus.

Rate of climb

 * m/min: 4
 * m/s: 8

I changed my vote retroactively, bringing the total from 5-7 to 4-8. In this case, the very obvious choice is the latter one.

miles

 * mi: 6
 * sm: 3
 * miles: 5

No consensus on which is to be used, though most of the respondents preferred an abbreviated form.

nautical miles

 * nm: 9
 * nmi: 1
 * nautical miles: 1

Also, the nmi fellow said that nm was okay, so nm wins.

knots

 * kt: 7
 * kts: 2
 * knots: 2

Strong majority in favour of kt. The remaining comments are too small to take into account.

Should units in the specs be linked to their respective articles

 * Yes: 7
 * No: 1
 * Link to a key to all of the units: 5
 * Link only to less common ones, if not also linked in the text: 3

Obviously, some form of linking is favoured, as only one respondent voted no. However, no consensus was reached with regards as to how to go about it.

Include derived specifications?

 * Yes: 7
 * No: 4

Majority supports the status quo.

Thrust/weight

 * With units: 5
 * Without units: 8

Majority supports the status quo.

Power/mass

 * Power/mass in kW/kg and hp/lb: 4
 * Power/weight in kW/kg and hp/lb: 4
 * Power/mass in W/kg and hp/lb: 3
 * Power/weight no units: 1

A vote for measurement in W/kg can be reasonably assumed to go under W/kg and hp/lb. The overall result is no consensus.

Should 'cruise speed' be added?

 * Yes: 10

Large number of supporting comments, no opposing comments.

Should 'maximum overload weight' be added?

 * Yes: 3

Difficult to guage because there were no opposing comments. However, most of the questions garnered double-digit responses, so lack of attention to this question should be considered a failure.

Should number and type of landing gear be added?

 * Yes: 1

One supporting comment does not constitute consensus.

Should 'maximum surface land/sea speed' be added?

 * Yes: 1

One supporting comment does not constitute consensus.

Should 'loaded weight' be removed?

 * Yes: 4
 * No: 1

Strong support for removal is displayed.

Should 'empty' be renamed 'empty weight'?

 * Yes: 9

Large number of supporting comments, no opposing comments.

Should 'maximum take-off' be renamed 'maximum gross take-off weight'?

 * Yes: 7
 * No: 2

Strong consensus in favour of change.

Should 'range' be renamed 'maximum range'?

 * Yes: 7
 * No: 4

Consensus not achieved in favour of change.

Should 'rate of climb' be renamed 'maximum rate of climb'?

 * Yes: 5
 * No: 2

Strong support for change.

'wing loading' >> 'maximum wing loading'?

 * Yes: 3 (75%)

No consensus.

Should the use of mach in max speed be dropped?

 * Yes: 4

No consensus.