Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/old table talk

Pre March 04 discussion

Start Talk
How about adopting a standard data table for aircraft? Something like the one currently on the Messerschmitt Me 163 page? -- Rlandmann 04:50, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm gonna try to adapt that chart to other articles, as well. ugen64 18:12, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)

-

Just as side-note on the units bit- in addtion to imperial and metric, some standarization of which units are used. I know I'v come across knots in a lot of places for speeed specifcations of aircraft, and since most airplane speed gauges use knots anyway it might be worth including. That would entail three colums for the speed and im not sure this is best incorporated.

Also, to be totally correct, kilogram is unit of mass not weight and the eqivelent to it is not pounds (it is slugs). Certianly as a practical matter using kilograms and pounds is preferable but I hate for the encycolopedia to perpetuate this common misconception.

A better distinction between the different tonnes that exist is needed, although this may have been previously resolved. Also, for maximum speed distinctions should be made for which altitude this is possible, and the way in which mach numbers listed probably needs to be decided as well.

As far as tables for different pages and varaints is the standard going to be to give varaints there own tables (and even pages), or use a combined graphs that list information for different planes next to eachother. Anyway I found this table one one site that I though was very good: [link here].

Perhaps we can have two tables for a given aircraft, one in the article like the current one with limited unit and baic information, and then a larger table on a separate page with full information. The idea being that a the full table is too large to include next to article- so just have an abridged version there.

So the Messerschmitt Me 163 page would have its main page also something like Messerschmitt Me 163 specifications with large table and perhaps other more esoteric information like units it served with.

Pages like List of motors of WW2 Luftwaffe Aircraft-which I view as more as part of the WW2 information set- then part of aircraft, I think are worth leaving unicorporated into other lists. In this case the page has RLM engine numbers which would not be used on a more general page.

Lastly, is there any standardization of using WW2, WWII, World War 2, World War Two, World War 2, etc. for wiki?

Greyengine5 21:16, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Not sure about how esoteric we should go with the data table - I was thinking that the level of info should be about that of an aviation book one can buy at a general bookshop, rather than a specialist military/transport/aviation bookshop. If anyone's devoted enough to add a more detailed table on a separate page, though, I'd say go for it...


 * Units should be those most commonly used. In everyday usage, weights are expressed in kg. Sources seem divided about metric units of thrust. The trend seems to be towards kN at the moment, rather than kg, but both are commonly found. Sources also seem divided on imperial units for speed, but mph seems more common than knots in general references. note that m/min (for climb) isn't strictly a metric unit anyway, but is commonly found. --Rlandmann 23:59, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Imperial and Metric can have there own categories of course. The issue of which magnitude and form- its largely a non-issue as as you say the common one is used. Whether knots should be shown and if its ok to perpetuate kilograms as a unit of force was what i was getting at. I suppose I would be inclinded just to let stay as is under the premise its understood that its referring to pounds mass or killograms in the sense of weight, but really this distinction is rarely made. Greyengine5 07:35, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Table Idea
I found this table and though I should show it as another example of a specifications table that was on website. It would need to be re-written in wiki form, and of course whether or not its useful to the project is its own matter.

NOTE: This table is from [this] website]] (I modfied it a little but its from that site and Im not sure if its public domain either, but if you wanted to use the format it would have to be wikified and recoded)

Talk Continued
I was realizing how different modern aircraft can be with avionics, massively joint development, and what not. Perhaps we can have different tables for older simpler aircraft and newer ones?

Greyengine5 03:13, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't see why all aircraft can't share the same table. If something doesn't apply to that particular type, then just don't include that row of the table... --Rlandmann 06:47, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Yea thats what I mean, dont have a bunch of "not applicable" -just change the table so it doesn't include unnecessary data. That what I mean by 'different tables'. Greyengine5 07:35, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually having a different table may not be such a bad idea- just so people dont have to change/remove categories so much. Perhaps one for helicopters which need a lot of different specs, and perhaps more specialzed ones for air forces or a time period. As mentioned its easy enough to remove rows, but the convience might be worth it. Greyengine5 20:55, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, firstly, why was the colour of the table changed? I know that green might be considered a little psychedelic by some, but there was no explanation as to why the colour was changed.

As to the other proposal, I would have to say that I do not like it. It would be alright to deal with in a GUI HTML editor, but not with the wiki where we have to work with source code. It is difficult to see exactly where to put the text. It is also non-standards compliant in that the markup is in block capitals. David Newton 05:37, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC) ---

Hmm the color thing was rather spontaneous- just though the blue fitted better with airplanes. As for the other proposal table- thats very good points, its a non-standard table from that webisite and would certinaly need to be redone for wikicode. If it was though i dont think it would be to bad finding were to place it thouh. As it is that table has a lot of leftover stuff that does nothing. I will try to work on to see if i can get it to a more wiki-ok'd state.

Greyengine5 06:14, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Another idea, table 2
Heres a sample table from the ju87 page thats seems a nice way to show difference between variants. I added the colors in to make easier to distinguish column and it ended looking pretty good. Anyway the might be a nice base for tables of variatants planes, althgough the header colors may be to dark for some monitors. Its easy enough to choose a lighter shade though.

and without colors

I think this is both hard-to-read and ugly.

Personally, I think that the data table at the top of any aircraft page should reflect a single "typical" variant - either the most numerous in production or a particularly famous variant (if these two aren't the same in any case). There might be a place for this kind of thing at the bottom of the page, on a separate page. There's also the possibility that significant variants of major types will eventually move to their own pages, as has happened with the Panavia Tornado, in which case that's where this data will (obviously) go. --Rlandmann 06:45, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Change the colors then!

Keep in mind this was never idea as a replacement for the current table, but just to show whats out there in terms of displaying multiple variant specs ( When the need arises) in the same table. As for whether its ugly or pretty- of course feel free to change it to better colors. Keep in mined finding the right shades of hex colors can be a finicky business though. As for the general comments I mostly agree- most of the aviation books I'v follow that conceptual format. However, having a comparison table for very similair models is useful- certianly whoever made the table initially thought so, and the format has its advantages. Breaking the data up makes it harder to compare specs, and when the differences are minor I dont see the need to have it on a serpate page. Greyengine5 07:22, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Manufacturer
I've snipped the manufacturer row out of the sample table, since if nothing else, this information is one of the few facts that is included in every aircraft article, and very prominently at that. I'd feel the same about "Role", except that I think it's useful as the main data table presents a single variant, and this might differ from the roles of other variants discussed in the article... --Rlandmann 03:38, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I put 'maker' back in before I read your comment. I dont think i mean it in the sense your talking about- I mean more the construction as with a lot of modern aircraft. I mean the table are re-lists of info in articles a lot of times, but I think there's benfit to having that info concentrated. So the idea here is- only when its needs ( I mean when its company its not useful) it, to list the main orginizations that worked on it. For example if one company design and construction is split between to companies they could bothbe listed there. Also, even in the other sense, I lot of books tend to have like a 'origin' or such category where they list the full names involved in contruction. For example this book has " origin: Ernst Heinkel AG, also built by Arado Flugzeug " in a table even though they mentioned the same thing later in the text. That was the idea anyway and if doenst fit for article, by all means delete that row. Greyengine5 05:49, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Having seen it in action a couple of times now, I think I agree with you - a small price in terms of space. Speaking of which.... --Rlandmann 23:45, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Date
Well, I guess the one final piece of essential, defining information we're missing is a date - I suggest "First Flight", since it's pretty much an easily identified baseline for all aircraft (barring cancelled projects, of course!) and also a date that's most commonly cited in reference works. Thoughts? --Rlandmann 23:45, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Thats a good idea to have that. First flight is definitely a good mark. Other date related ideas-- maybe have development years and production years? If we list development years that might be useful thing for ones that did not take flight. So it could list first flight say January 3 1962 then below Develpment 1959-1963, Production 1963-1972. I'v seen a number of books inlude active service life but this may be to much for that table. As alernative to very specific date perhasps a sort of ambigious year column as is often seen? Certianly some date information is good idea though.

Ok fleshed out some ideas in table form. Surviving Aicraft is not a date but this is often shown figure for a lot of the older planes and I figured I'd through it out there as an idea. (Though probably not go in this category) (I shortened to just the top section so it would take up so much space)


 * This really to much stuff i guess (up above). I did change "first flight" to "year" in the main table to allow more leeway. The first flight can be hard to find, plus listing a first flight date other then for the airplane listing could be confusing if that is not understood to be the case. Also, a lot of sites on the internet/books often times have just a general 'year' category. This is less specific so there is some leeway, but in general its going to of the year of the first flight anyway. Greyengine5 20:05, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * "Year of what" certainly more ambigous, but the idea is to allow for that extra leeway and give some choice there. As mentioned just above:
 * One, it removes the confusion over whether its the first flight of that model or of a different aircraft of the series.
 * Two, the exact date of first flight can be very hard to find for many aircraft in general references.
 * Perhaps a explantion could be included in a link form of it.


 * Yes - way too much information. The whole point of a table like this is to try and be as concise as possible. What next? Airfoil sections?
 * If there's any date available for an aircraft, it's first flight. It's also the one most commonly cited date for any aircraft - and for a good reason - it's also a date that will apply to all aircraft that ever made it off the drawing board. Like any other data in the table - if the initial contributor can't find it, it should just be left blank. Someone else will be able to fill it in later.
 * On its own, "Year" means absolutely nothing, and just invites disparity between different entries. --Rlandmann 04:53, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * For the reason "invites disparity between different entries" Ill let it go, but I still prefer ywar as I dont like the ambiguity between the first flight of that model and of the series that exists. Inclusion of airfoil sections- captial idea! How about the dihedral as well!


 * What about listing other dates right after since there enough space there for some more text. Such year of entrance in serive- another important especially with the longer development time of some aircraft. (see revised dat table) (disregard older rows) Greyengine5 05:40, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * As I said, it's *very* simple to specify which model made that first flight. --Rlandmann 05:54, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Table Size
This is just an antempt to compact the table but maintain the same readabilty. The current table seems to have some unused space. Perhaps this will make it more feasible to inlcude more information. I used some of the code from the footer. Might be able to take some of the more critical links ( like direct versions ( A, B, etc..)) and put it at bottom as sort of 'table footer'. Well anyway a it seems pretty readable even at this level, so at least some shrinkage should be possible.

Ok i put this variant links thing in. I dont like it one the top but I could not get it go under, be separate and have text to the right. THe idea was since this data will be for only one aircraft- it would alow quickly jumping between them when your looking at tables. It may be easier to have a make singel data 'comparison' page for the variants and link to that. Greyengine5 22:33, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)




 * Much better I think. Why is there a "-" in front of the "lb" in the Imperial weights? I can't recall having seen it written that way - if it doesn't belong there, then it can only serve to confuse those of us not intimately familiar with that system of weights and measures. --Rlandmann 03:38, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I put the dash in front of lbs. It is there because pounds and inches are often linked by dashes in military history textbooks. For example, take a look at Roskill or Morison, and you will see 5-inch guns referred to for example. David Newton 04:15, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * But isn't this only when the unit is being used as an adjective? Looks to me like the hyphen in "5-inch gun" is the same as the one in "fixed-wing aircraft" (wing is a noun being used here as part of an adjective) or "well-made omelette". Like I said, I don't claim great expertise on Imperial units, but the web searching I've done doesn't seem to show this usage except in adjectival usage. Might ask at the VP --Rlandmann 06:00, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * IME, I've only ever seen the hyphen in adjectival forms. In addition, it appears to have nothing to do with whether metric or imperial units are in use: a ten-foot pole, or a two-metre pole. (Google shows instances with and without the hyphen). A number of units as a noun never has a hyphen: 12 pounds, 23 metres. Marnanel 06:29, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I notice that the table has been changed from an absolute pixel value for its width to a percentage value. Why was that done? 30% is going to be too small on some screens I would think. I use percentage values for tables quite often on the website that I run, but I feel that an absolute value is correct for this table. It also makes inclusion of photographs problematic. The standard size for thumbnails seems to have been 300 pixels, which makes a 30% table problematic on screens such as mine which run at a higher resolution (1280*1024). However, have the table at a fixed pixel size and that isn't a problem. BTW, I've fixed the Me-163 demonstration table to go to the right of the page. Having the table in the centre of the page isn't exactly condusive to readability.David Newton 21:36, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Can the table be made any smaller vertically by trimmin the space above and below the headers? Greyengine5 20:06, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

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

Current Issues: ---
 * Table coding- fixed pixel sounds like a much better idea. I think that (%) resulted from using footer coding. Seems pretty much resolved know though.
 * Dates to include. Which dates? First Flight is a good start but what about development years produciton etc.
 * Kg versus Kgf. I think using slugs, newtons, or mass instead of weight are not the best routes. The real question is whether using kgf is better then kg. On one hand kg is commonly 'understood' to be referring to kgf when used as a weight and kgf is not a well known unit, but as a practical matter this distinction is not commonly understood at all and using kg is incorrect for weights. If we switch to a 'mass' instead of 'weight' (to avoid kgf) then pound is confronted with the same problem- and then pounds mass unit mass be used for it to be correct.
 * Put any footer info by table? Might be worthwhile for aircraft variants that have there own pages (.i.e the panavia tornado).
 * Future issues/goals: Customized footers for different air forces. Maybe custom but standarized footer for civilian manufacturers too? Other series category possibilites: superelatives (fastest, heaviest, etc title holders), historical series (noteworthy aircraft, 5-6 ground breaking aircraft like wright brothers- dc-3 -concorde kind of thing)Greyengine5 04:05, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Dates to include: I'd say an important date is date of last service, if withdrawn. Dates of manufacture are of secondary importance; date of service entry?


 * Kg versus kgf -- pedantry, IMO. We should use pounds and kilograms, just like everyone else, even if it's not strictly speaking 'correct'.  Like it or not, in actual usage, kilograms and pounds are treated as measurements of weight by practically everyone.  It is not Wikipedia's job to change the world, just to document it.


 * Overall I'm liking the format. I've put the new table onto C-141 Starlifter to see how it looks there.  I'll probably trial out a US military footer table there, too. &mdash;Morven 22:40, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Please see my comments on the footer page --Rlandmann 23:53, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Dates- date of service entry i like, not sure i like last date though as theres often such ambiguity about that. I think some of the problems arise form the fact the table is for a specific type, but the articles are often for a whole series. Development years (say 1926-1928), then years it was in proudciton (1928-1934), and end of major use (1945) really apply to a whole aircraft line ( or just a model). The question arises should data not specific to given model be included on table for it? Even first flight- is that to mean 1s flight of the "'d' models or of the type itself. Its seems the table data set is bumping into a split between data for the line as a whole and for the aircraft its giving numbers for.  The debate already exits in the form of arament listing--just weapons of that model (a,b ,c,d..) or the whole line?
 * Format- is there way to reduce the length of the first column and make the data colums wider
 * Weight- certainly kg is the common form and it certainly easier to leave it that. Its still incorrect usage though if its not understood to mean kgf, which on the whole is bad for the pedia to perpetuate. However, rather then using kgf everywhere why not just make a note at the top of the weight column? Just say kg is used in place of kgf. Anyone who knows of the distinction who see kg for a weight knows it mean kgf- but its worthwhile to inform people who do not- especially worthwhile job for a encylopedia. (even the kgf debate here has already resulted in one convert!)
 * Just as a side note- it seems airships were used as bombers in ww1, and a lot of other places. Has anyone made a table for airships?
 * Greyengine5 04:05, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * First flight date - if the first flight of the type was not made by the version shown in the table, then it's best to be unambiguous and state the version that made that flight. See the Me 163 page for an example. I suggest leaving first flight as the only date in the actual table - I think the table is already starting to bloat out of control.
 * In common usage, kilogram is a unit of weight. It is not "incorrect" - it is just a difference between the scientific usage of the word and the common usage of the word. There are other words that also differ in meaning depending if they are being used in science or in colloquial use.
 * At least one airship, USS Akron, has the WikiProject Ships data table. That's the only one I've come across.--Rlandmann 07:32, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Note on Mig abbreviations, "Soviet fighters prototypes are given an "I-" prefix. When they're accepted for production, they're issued with a prefix derived from the manufacturer's name. If the I-270 had been accepted for production it might have been the MiG-17". the form MiG is reserved for these types. MiG could be used as a 'unofficial' acronym for the correct full name, but this is to be avoid unless necessary for space. Keep in mind doing this is a conncession to both space on the popular recognition of the MiG name (somtimes seen MIG).

Linking?
I changed many of the terms into links for people to click if they did know what given categoty was. For example 'wing loading' is link now so you could have page explaining the term. There could be one page to explain them all, or just link to individual pages. I dont know if there is way to keep a links text black though so it does not mar the look of the table. Greyengine5 19:53, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 I'm very much opposed to including any of these links in a table of this nature. I think it's unnecessary clutter. How do others feel? --Rlandmann 05:57, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)