Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/page content/Archive 2

Survivors
I questioned a new user on adding every instance of his local museums collection to the survivors section of the relevant aircraft, suggesting that listing a instance for a Hawker Hunter when there were many remaining was a case wher the instance was not notable. He pointed out the example of F-101 Voodoo and was merely following the example. Do we have clear guidance on when to list examples in preservation/post service use? I favour notability as too only example in existence, only example in the relevant country...GraemeLeggett 16:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The guidance at the moment has When large amount of aircraft is still preserved, list should be limited to most prominent ones. Not that clear what large amount should be, the F-101 list has nearly 30 but all are on public display. I would suggest that when an aircraft is still in service then only list survivors if any notable aircraft are on public display (refer C-130 Hercules which has 10 listed on public display although I am not sure they are all notable). When an aircraft is out of service and there is a lot of them perhaps we need stricter guidance. The P-51 Mustang says they are 287 survivors including 154 fliers (thankfully they are not all listed) but survivors para lists six random fliers and no museum aircraft. Perhaps if they are 30 or less survivors of a type them we should list them but more than that restrict the list to notable aircraft on public display. MilborneOne 20:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is that guidance stated? It wasn't obvious for me so I guess I was looking in the wrong place, hence my question here. GraemeLeggett 12:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Is the Survivors section generally placed before the Specs? A few articles I checked are like that. I'd rather see it after the specs, especially for a long list. -Fnlayson 04:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The project page lists Survivors before Specifications which is why most of them follow that guidance. MilborneOne 12:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a somewhat new addition there. Thanks. -Fnlayson 14:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Would it be easier to just say if n > 10 then make it a separate page? - Emt147 Burninate! 21:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Placing Incidents section
Does the placement of the Incidents (or Accidents) section need to be specified? Several Airbus, Boeing, & McDonnell Douglas airliner articles place Incidents after the Specifications. The Gulfstream & Bombardier articles I checked didn't list any Incidents. The Embraer articles have Incidents after Specs. In any event, I think the changes would be few to say Incidents should be located after Specs. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My preference would be to see "Incidents/Accidents" either appear after the "Operational history" or after "Operators" as I believe that the section further details the operational use of the type. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC).
 * Most airliner articles don't have an Operational history section. It's difficult to write about use by several airlines. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Then under "Operators" makes sense. BTW, why are there few or no airliner article "operational history" or service records, I would think that there should be some commentary about common factors such as acceptance by public, use of routes, etc.? FWIW, just curious... Bzuk (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC).
 * I think the Incidents section is where it is on many article because it is generally a list. That does not fit in well with text in paragraph form.  This has been mentioned for some reason like this. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would support the section anywhere above Specifications so below Operators and before Survivors sounds good. Perhaps we can add a comment about notability etc.. MilborneOne (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Concur with Milb, as this is the position used on most of the articles I've workd on, and where I usually move or add the section to. Especially on pages where there have been lots of incidents/accidents such as long-service airliners, I usually include the word "Notable" in the title. - BillCJ (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I squeezed in a 'safety record' section in the F-104 article above the specs which nobody objected to but that title would probably only fit in that article. For airliners I think it would be better somewhere before specs, I could imagine a WP reader scrolling down an aircraft page to see how safe it is just before they fly on one and might expect to see it in the main text. They're all safe are'nt they?!! Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

So is this order ..


 * Operators
 * Incidents
 * Survivors/Aircraft on display

OK with everyone? -Fnlayson (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK MilborneOne (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope so. ;) Was your suggestion above spelled out. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference section headers
A recent edit to Canadair CF-104 has changed 'notes' and 'bibliography' to level three headers, this means that they now appear in the 'contents' box. This does not seem to be the normal practise, compared with featured articles like Boeing 747 for instance. Would just like some clarification please on this. Nimbus227 (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Some aircraft articles have notes and bibliography as level 3 headers some have as per Boeing 747 (and some are not big enough to use either). It is not something that the page contents deals with – just a note on where the Level 2 Reference should be in the structure. Dont think it matters but it would be nice if all the aircraft pages were all the same. Anybody have a MOS reference to what is recommended. MilborneOne (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The aviation project seems to do better (split reference headers) than other WP articles. WP:LAYOUT seems to call 'notes' and 'bibliography' sections (implying that they need headers) and mentions permalinks and problems that can be caused by changing the header level (have not looked in to this yet). As you say it would be good if the aircraft project selected an article to be used as a 'yardstick' which would avoid time being spent on style issues like this one. As you can imagine it could be confusing for new editors trying to comply with project guidelines. The F-104 Starfighter recently failed a GA nom, the reviewer (amongst other things) criticised the layout, although this may have been his perception of what is correct as even the WP:MOS states at the very end that nothing is hard and fast. Excuse my ignorance but where would be a better place to discuss this than page content. Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Culprit appearing here: Guys, the original alteration to the References section was actually made by a Swedish editor which I was about to immediately revert until I noticed that the MoS allows this variation and in fact, some added advantages accrue besides grouping related biographical records and notes section and reducing the type size, in that the contents box now provides a quick access to each individual sub-section. The References section as a whole has been undergoing subtle development and will continue to evolve as editors adapt the citations and reference guides to fit specific needs.


 * As to the criticism of the layout of the F-104 Starfighter article, this is so entirely subjective that I wouldn't place much store on it. As to a good example of an aviation article, look at Supermarine Spitfire, North American A-36, F-4 Phantom II, Concorde and Amelia Earhart. Each of these articles is the product of numerous editors and yet provides a systematic and standard format for others to follow. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC).


 * I also looked at the Supermarine Spitfire thinking it is one of the higher profile articles and agree it is good, noting that the reference headers are 'old style'. I also note it is only B class? Unfortunately I did place much store on the failed GA because it was disappointing that the article appeared to fall over on MoS issues and may well again, if and when it is renominated. Is it true that we only have three good articles? This a separate subject I know, but I believe if articles were reviewed fairly (taking into account the latitude that the MoS gives) then there would be many more. Nimbus227 (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

See also section
Currently, the Page Content page lists See also, Related development, Comparable aircraft, and Variants labels in this section. The aircontent template does not have a part for Variants now. Should the text on Page Content be updated or Variants added to the template? Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Section ordering got me as well but I am over it!!! I think the variant text relating to the template should be removed as we use a level two section header in the article body and that is recommended on the Page Content page. I think we need to archive this talk page, it's a bit looooong now!! Cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Good spot! Variants used to be linked from the "Related content" section, but got moved to Infobox Aircraft in early 2006. I'm just going to update the text on this page, since it hasn't reflected reality for two years now. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good deal, thanks. I'll add an Archive box at the top and look at archiving some of this page. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Missing Specifications
Just looking at a number of articles that have the aero-specs missing spec template and most of them have a reasonable set of data. Before I remove any missing specs notices do we have a minimum acceptable list of spec items, if not should we agree one? MilborneOne (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There's never been anything formally defined as far as I can remember; and I agree with you that this tag seems to have been rather over-enthusiastically applied. I'd suggest that realistic minimums might be:
 * Powered, heavier-than-air: span, length, wing/rotor area, at least one weight, engine type and power/thrust, at least one speed, range/endurance, and ceiling.
 * Unpowered, heavier-than-air: span, length, wing/rotor area, aspect ratio (for fixed-wing types!), at least one weight, at least one speed, and glide ratio.
 * Powered, lighter-than-air: diameter, length, volume, lift, at least one weight, engine type and power, at least one speed, range/endurance, and ceiling.
 * Unpowered, lighter-than-air: I don't think we've covered enough yet to say anything sensible :)
 * I suspect the prevalence of the tag is thanks to those who feel that every available spec should be provided for an aircraft; I just wish that they'd spend some time with us on the missing aircraft list – it may provide a new perspective... :) --Rlandmann (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Just as an aside, the specs are often updated piecemeal, with the most recet updater often neglecting (for whatever reason) to remove the tag. I know I've done that myself a few times! I get to the bottom of the specs, and the tag is out of view when I save it, and so I just for get to remove it, or don't realize it's still there. At other times, I really didn't know how much was enough, so I left it there for that reason. It might be a bit involed to do, but maybe changing the format of the specs so the the only blank fields that show in the main article screen are the "important" ones. (Perhaps a form of that is there already – I'm not sure.) – BillCJ (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Aircraft specifications seems to have been designed with that in mind; aerospecs will only display fields when there's actual data in them. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been leaving the 'aerospecs' tag where an article has all the specs but no cited reference is given.Nimbus (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Subject name and page title conventions
I'm hoping to precipitate some referenceable text on the convention for the bold subject name at the start of an article. Such text probably belongs on Naming conventions (aircraft), but I'm starting here to expedite resolution. First off, as WP:MOS indicates and WP:Air/PC notes, a consistent format contributes to readability. WP:LS indicates that the subject name should appear in bold as early as naturally possible, avoid included links, and need not be exactly the same as the page title. The specific issue that arises with aircraft pages is whether the manufacturer name should be included as part of the subject name, even if not part of the page title per Naming conventions (aircraft), for example F-15 Eagle or P-47 Thunderbolt (to use the given examples). I don't at this point advocate one way or the other on the issue, merely appeal for a referenceable convention to minimize disputes. I would also note that the bold subject name in the example in WP:Air/PC includes a link, in contradiction to WP:LS, and it might avoid confusion to conform the example (unless a categorical exception to the WP:LS standards wants to be pursued). Thoughts? ENeville (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Since few people are likely to see this here, I'm answering it over at the main project talk page here --Rlandmann (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Pursuant to discussion there, I am delinking the subject name in the sample intro. ENeville (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Variants vs. Development and Operational history
There are a few articles that use an extensive Variants section in place of Development or Operational history sections of the article (e.g. UH-1 Iroquois and CH-47 Chinook. I can understand that this is "easier" for the editors to create but in turn creates questions about the timing and continuity of those variants in the development and over the operational history of the aircraft. I understood the Variants section to be used to describe the differences from one model to another, Development discusses the background to how the aircraft came to exist, and Operational history covers the use of the aircraft once it becomes available to the operators. I question the value of blending these into one section, whether it be Variants, Development, or Operational history, because I believe it then loses the value the missing section was intended to bring to the article. --Born2flie (talk) 07:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more! In a best-case scenario, the "Variants" section should provide a quick-and-ready reference to the various subtypes; most entries should be a single sentence. This is especially true of popular/prolific types with many subtypes. The Variants section should summarise what's in the Development and Operational history sections, not replace them... (pet peeve of mine!) --Rlandmann (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the UH-1 is a good example of that, as it has a "Variants" section with short, one-line info on each type. The variant portion in the Development section was added after a cutback of the "Variants" Section, and expanded over time from just a few variants to what it is now. Perhaps we could group the related variants together under sub-headings, or deal with the history in chronological order.


 * As to the CH-47, it is a perfect example of what Born is talking about, and in fact I've been meaning to tackle it for a while now, but never do. I contributed to the current format over a year and a half ago, before I understood how to do it correctly, and because it was partially that way already. Now that I've been reminded of it, I'll try to get to it this week, if my health allows. - BillCJ (talk) 09:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Have to agree with the all the comments made particularly Rlandmanns that the variants sections should be a summary of development and history and an explanation of differences. The problem with the the Chinook style is that it does not provide a chronological history, and the UH-1 is a bit of both but because the variants have been added to development in alphabetical order which means it does not flow as a development history. Perhaps as BillCJ says we should get Chinook right first as a good example. MilborneOne (talk) 09:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Heavy Bombers
Some people think there is actually a difference between a heavy bomber and a strategic bomber. I dont. they both carry the same amount of bombloads and heavy bomber is not even a type its just a broader and simpler meaning of a strategic bomber. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.217.119 (talk) 08:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I replied at WT:Air. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Survivors (or Aircraft on display)
Like to add the following to the end of paragraph – Aircraft that are still operational (in military or airline use) only aircraft on public display should be listed and the title Aircraft on display should be used. Any comments. MilborneOne (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That seems fine. I'd like to see some wording that says aircraft in operational use are not included with "Survivors", so this is clear.  -Fnlayson (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with both those thoughts. I don't really like "Survivors", because I don't think it is clear to the casual reader what the term means. In some articles, when the aircraft are all in museums, as opposed to being displayed in parks, etc, I have just called the section "Museum Aircraft" to be more specific. I don't object to "Aircraft on display", though. - Ahunt (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) Have to be careful with the definition of 'operational' to cater for the older types that still fly effectively as museum pieces, some earning revenue. I'm thinking of the Shuttleworth Collection, Air Atlantique or the three F-104's that are still flying as a private demo team for example. Do we have a problem with this section in articles and are we contemplating changing the title of that section project wide? Nimbus (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Survivors" or "Aircraft on display" should be fine. I think we are just trying to clarify where operational aircraft should be be listed.  -Fnlayson (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I remember we were kicking this wording around a while ago; the problem was finding a single word or phrase that encapsulates the variety of aircraft and bits of aircraft that we list. I too dislike "survivors" – not only is it counter-intuitive, but is not a word I seem to have encountered much in this context. "Notable extant examples and replicas" would probably cover it, but is a bit of a mouthful! (And no, I don't believe for a minute that the surviving wreckage of a warbird somewhere in the wilderness is necessarily notable)
 * Like Nimbus227 says, we need to be careful about what we call "operational" – personally, I don't think that things like the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight should count – ie, their aircraft are eligible to be listed as "survivors" --Rlandmann (talk) 00:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess 'Survivors' is a compromise which I have to agree may not be ideal but I can live with it. We have a book published every year in the UK called 'Wrecks and Relics' listing all (and I mean all!) bits of aeroplanes kicking around, flying or otherwise. The only problem I see in this section is long lists of rusting hulks and they are fairly rare. Nimbus (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have always looked at these lists on Wikipedia as being "where would a casual reader go to see one of these aircraft on display", in other words museums, gate guardians, etc. "Survivors" almost sounds like "personification" to me! - Ahunt (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well this started off as a discussion on the guidelines for this section but I can see that people have reservations about the section title. If you really want to change it how about 'Surviving airframes'? But a bot would have to be used, I'm not typing it in thousands of times!! More worms I think. Nimbus (talk) 01:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Following comments above just thought I would try a revised wording which actually creates two headings:


 * Aircraft on display – Aircraft on display should be information on non-airworthy aircraft that are on permanent public display. It should not include partial aircraft or aircraft not viewable by the public. When a large amount of aircraft are still preserved the list should be limited to the most prominent ones.


 * Survivors – Survivors should be information on aircraft that have survived following the retirement of the aircraft type from normal military or commercial use. It should include airworthy aircraft and any non-airworthy aircraft not on public display but otherwise notable.

I have kept the term as survivors for now (so we dont have to rename everything) but open to suggestions. Any thoughts. MilborneOne (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Good wording, I think. It won't be a problem if an article has both sections, right? -Fnlayson (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, the idea is that both could be used if appropriate. MilborneOne (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)




 * MilborneOne want once again to define what is considered notible, so lets define it:


 * 1) Mass Produce aircraft
 * 2) Historical Content
 * 3) Well Known to the public (can name that aircraft in one glance at a picture)

So lets look at some of MilborneOne's articles:
 * 1) Auster Atom – one built, zero historical content, unknown to the public – not notible
 * 2) Armstrong Whitworth Apollo – two built, zero historical content, unknown to the public – not notible
 * 3) BAT Baboon – one built, zero historical content, unknown to the public – not notible
 * 4) BAT Crow – one built, zero historical content, unknown to the public – not notible
 * 5) Breda-Pittoni BP.471 – one built, zero historical content, unknown to the public – not notible
 * 6) British Army Aeroplane No 1 – one built, zero historical content, unknown to the public – not notible
 * 7) Elliotts Newbury Eon – one built, zero historical content, unknown to the public – not notible


 * I am sure I could go on and on with this list find numerous aircraft that do not belong in a general encyclopedia (as many are claiming wikipedia is). According to this (small group) only aircraft (or things) that are easly identifiable to the public should be included in wikipedia.  I am quite sure that if this type of rules go into effect, every article listed above (plus many, many unlisted) will be deemed unnotible and subject to deletion. Davegnz (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone is claiming that Wikipedia is a "general encyclopedia"; only that it is an encyclopedia (as opposed to any other kind of reference work). In the context of articles about aircraft, Wikipedia can be compared to an encyclopedia of aircraft. These types of works organise their content by distinct aircraft types; and the most comprehensive ones include entries on minor types where one (or even none) were built. Because Wikipedia isn't paper, we can afford to also include separate articles for these one-offs. No-one is claiming that these are anything other than footnotes in aviation history, but we are modelling our content on what encyclopedias do, since that's what Wikipedia is – an encyclopedia. --Rlandmann (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You just said some magic words – " Because Wikipedia isn't paper, we can afford to also include separate articles for these one-offs " because Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia we have room for the details – whether an editor wants to spend 50 hours researching a one-off type of aircraft or and idiot editor (ie me) wants to spend 5 hours researching an photo caption) there is room for everyone. Wikipedia should be like Aeroflight's Encyclopedia (which is published yearly) or simular to their web page: F-15 Eagle


 * I note that once I hit you favorite subject that were close to home, you feel the need to protect you work – I feel the same way about my research. Davegnz (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The issue with photo captions is not one of space – it's with excessive detail that reduces readability through the clutter it creates.
 * To the best of my knowledge, Aeroflight does not publish an encyclopedia. If it does, please provide a link. But Wikipedia should not attempt to emulate the work of specialist websites like Aeroflight – these are quite different publications.
 * To use a very rough analogy, it's like arguing that every family that owns a minivan should own a 2-tonne truck instead, because the truck carry more and "more is better". But the van and the truck are intended to do different things and are aimed at different markets and have different advantages and disadvantages. So too an encyclopedia article is intended to do something different from a page on a specialist website. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As nobody has any objections and Davegnz comments are related to notability which is not dealt with in the suggested text I will amend the appropriate page. MilborneOne (talk) 10:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree! - Ahunt (talk) 10:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Image guidelines
This project does not seem to have any guidance material on images for aircraft articles and I believe we need something written down.

We have had a number of occurrences in recent months where existing images illustrating aircraft articles have been deleted or deleted and replaced with other images. Sometimes they are images the person took themselves, other times pictures they have found somewhere. Often there is no edit summary explaining the change and no discussion either. The result is often a delete-revert-delete-revert sequence, which does not help make the article better.

A recent example of this is a typical case study. In the Embraer E-Jets article an editor deleted a photo I had uploaded and replaced it with one he found [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Embraer_E-Jets&diff=231612163&oldid=230894588] giving a blank edit summary. After several reverts I finally got a discussion on the talk page, engaged some other editors and at this point it seems to have been decided to use a completely new image to replace both of them. This is fine – at least there was some discussion.

To my mind this example and many others point to two problems that need addressing here:

1. Existing images in an article should not be deleted or replaced without discussion on the talk page. In this case an editor thought that the image he had found was better than the one he replaced, but I disagreed, not because he replaced an image I had uploaded, but because the image he used was a poor angle and a high-aspect ratio photo that didn't fit in with other images on the page. The point being that there is a need for discussion, not a "no-edit-summary" deletion. Perhaps the new image is better than the old one, or perhaps there was a reason why the older image is there – may be it shows a specific variant, angle, aircraft feature, etc.

2. I never delete any images that another editor has added to an article. In some cases it would seem justified, such as in de Havilland Canada DHC-5 Buffalo. In this case I added two images to an article that had two really poor ones, out of focus and badly lit. I didn't delete them, but rather added my own images and left the existing ones there. The reason for my own personal policy on this is that Wikipedia relies on the largest number of contributions to make it work. Many people go to great efforts to get photos for articles. In my own case I have cleaned out my garage (big job!) to find old albums of historical 35 mm aircraft photos from the 1970s to scan for articles. I have biked 70 km to take photos of rare aircraft (I don't have a car) specifically for Wikipedia articles. These are minor examples – I know of other editors who have gone to far greater lengths to get photos specifically for Wikipedia articles. Then they upload them and someone deletes them without a discussion or even an edit summary. This is very demotivating for contributors and has, in at least one case I know of, caused people to give up on Wikipedia altogether. This is not helpful as Wikipedia needs more contributors, not fewer.

I think the solution is fairly simple and could be simply a guideline for this project page that says something like below. I would like to hear what other project members think:

Images
Some existing images used in aircraft articles have been carefully selected to illustrate specific variants, angles of view or aircraft features.

Existing images should not be deleted from articles without discussion and consensus that this will improve the article on the article's talk page. Images may be added to the article without removing or replacing existing images without discussion.

Removing existing images without discussion and consensus may demotivate editors from contributing images and will harm more than help the aim of getting the best pictures to illustrate all aircraft articles. It is better to have an excess of images and put them into a gallery rather than remove images and have editors stop contributing as a result. - Ahunt (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This seems reasonable. I also try to add images instead of replacing them.  It should also mention that in flight images are preferable for the Infobox.  Some editors want to replace a good flight image with "their" image of the aircraft sitting on the ground.  Sometimes there are folks pushing images of their airline/military and replacing images as well. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) I know where you are coming from, it is a growing problem. Not long after this discussion Talk:F-104 Starfighter the infobox photo was changed without discussion, the editor stating that discussion was not needed. This may be true but discussion is the only way to gain consensus (read keep everyone happy). I had a break from WP for a while after that and other incidents. I certainly think that discussion on changing the infobox photo is appropriate but possibly not other images, especially if an 'obvious' low quality image is replaced with a 'very obviously' better one. I have taken photos especially for articles but tend to go for subjects that have no image at all in the hope of avoiding any 'my image is better than yours' discussions. We all know that 'ownership' of an image is virtually relinquished once it is posted here but I can understand that as human beings we might have feelings on them being replaced or deleted. I thought I did see guidelines on the infobox image but can't find it, maybe it was on a talk page? Image copyright verification is another area that editors spend time on before posting (I have posted some German WP images after translating their tags and making sure they were ok to use). Galleries are a possible solution but many editors don't like them (there is usually a 'Commons' link), if they were used perhaps the number of images in them should be limited. And of course any 'guideline' is free to be ignored as it says at the bottom of this particular project page!! Cheers Nimbus (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As an example here are the guidelines from the automobile project: WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions, I note the phrase 'conventions will be followed' at the top of the page, crikey! Nimbus (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Fnlayson that the guideline should mention info box images being in-flight where possible. New draft version below.

Nimbus – you weren't the editor I was thinking of, but obviously this phenomena is having a negative effect on editors who contribute lots to the project, as you do! Personally I am actually against deleting any images, no matter how bad. I would rather put them into a gallery, rather than drive anyone with good intentions off Wikipedia. It isn't a good trade for one poor image in my estimation. I know some editors don't like galleries and I am on record as supporting them. I think they solve more problems than they create, but that is just my opinion.

Okay I do admit that did delete one image [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diamond_D-Jet&diff=226797509&oldid=226345477] but it was discussed on the talk page first and was a totally irrelevant image to the article (or anything else).

On "enforcement" you are quite right, it is just a guideline, but my hope is that if we get good consensus to adopt it then perhaps the regular editors here can help revert image deletions and get them onto the discussion page. I know whenever I see image deletions (not just my own) I revert them and try to get a discussion going, especially if the images were not poor quality or off topic. - Ahunt (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Images (second draft)
Some existing images used in aircraft articles have been carefully selected to illustrate specific variants, angles of view or aircraft features.

Info box or lead images should show the aircraft in flight whenever such a picture is available. If an in-flight image is not available then the info box or lead photo should show the best overall view of the aircraft and not a detail close up or similar shot. Detail photos should be further down, in the sections they better illustrate (i.e. Landing gear, instrument panel).

Existing images should not be deleted from articles without discussion and consensus that this will improve the article on the article's talk page. Images may be added to the article without removing or replacing existing images without discussion.

Removing existing images without discussion and consensus may demotivate editors from contributing images and will harm more than help the aim of getting the best pictures to illustrate all aircraft articles. It is better to have an excess of images and put them into a gallery rather than remove images and have editors stop contributing as a result. - Ahunt (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I like it, but I'm not sure about including the last paragraph. Ah nevermind, it is growing on me.  Anybody got any issues or suggestions on the 2nd draft? -Fnlayson (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I read the automotive image guidelines that Nimbus pointed out. They are worth a look. They are very much more technically specific than what I have proposed here – focusing on colour, contrast, lighting, representativeness, etc. Does anyone think we should go that route? - Ahunt (talk) 12:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As somebody who often deletes images in aircraft articles for various reasons I have a few comments. I dont have a problem with the idea of the image guideline and support the idea. Agree that the the infobox image needs some sort of protection (if only by definition). Agree that existing images should not be deleted without at least an explanation on the talk page. Most of the images I delete are newly added and mainly copyright violations but some of them are just bad images, what I would call holiday snaps or duplications of images already in the article (same sub-type, same airline etc). Most of these would normally just be covered by an appropriate edit summary. The other case which is replacing images for nationalistic reasons is covered with the dont replace statement. Not sure I agree with encouraging galleries as most of them are just filled with the holiday snap type of images where we should really encourage more technical images of aspects of the design that have been discussed in the article and we should encourage the use of commons. So I think you could lose the last paragraph and it would be a good starting point. Some of the good general points in the Auto guidelines may be worth considering the more particular points are probably to much for aircraft (consider 1, 3, 7 and 10). 9 (Captions) was interesting as some aircraft articles have a complete history of the aircraft in the image caption even if the particular aircraft itself is not notable perhaps we should consider some general caption guidelines as well. MilborneOne (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree, galleries are a bad idea. If there are too many image to show, try linking to the commons galleries in the see also section. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Images (draft 3)
(Undent) I cobbled this mixture of the proposals above and the automobile project guidelines together as a suggestion, I copied the bit about galleries over. They do seem to be discouraged on WP in general, perhaps this feature should be switched off although I think there are a few articles where it works well. I added a line about captions.


 * Images should enhance the article in which they are placed and should also feature the subject of the article section near which they are placed.


 * Info box or lead images should show the aircraft in flight whenever such a picture is available. If an in-flight image is not available then the info box or lead photo should show the best overall view of the aircraft and not a detail close up or similar shot. Detail photos should be further down, in the sections they better illustrate (i.e. Landing gear, instrument panel).


 * Please use the "thumbnail" option for all images other than those inside infoboxes and the three-view drawing (where one is included in the specifications section). In accordance with Manual of Style, do not specify the size of the thumbnail as this is specified in user preferences.


 * Wherever possible use free images, preferably uploaded to the Commons.


 * The quality of an image is always more important than the quantity of images included — a gallery or a link to the Commons is preferable to flooding an article with images.


 * Any captions should be concise and not overwhelm the image.


 * Many existing images used in aircraft articles have been carefully selected to illustrate specific variants, angles of view or aircraft features. These images should not be deleted from articles without discussion and consensus that this action will improve the article on the article's talk page. Images may be added to the article without removing or replacing existing images without discussion.


 * Please note that removing or replacing existing images without discussion and consensus may demotivate editors from contributing images and will harm more than help the aim of getting the best pictures to illustrate all aircraft articles. It is better to have an excess of images and put them into a gallery rather than remove images and have editors stop contributing as a result.


 * I didn't number the paras but I think they are in a reasonable order, gives us something to play with anyway. Cheers Nimbus (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Still dont like the last paragraph appears to have more opinion than guidance and still encourages galleries. So I would agree with all but the last paragraph which in my opinion could just be removed. MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I like what Nimbus put together above. I realize that some editors don't like galleries. The most complete guidance on them is at Image use policy which indicates that no policy on galleries has been decided, although they are generally discouraged and that "good reasons must be given for creating them". Personally I see galleries as a better option than deleting photos, but that is just my opinion. I usually put galleries right at the bottom of the article, so they aren't obtrusive. Since the final policy on galleries within Wikipedia in general has not been decided I don't think we should go either way on them within this project either. Perhaps MilborneOne has the best approach and we should just remove the last para from the proposal and be silent on the subject of galleries. - Ahunt (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) Ok, so we are getting there. I think the sentiment of the last para is the reason that Ahunt opened this discussion, perhaps it could be reworded to be more of a guideline than opinion. It is acknowledged that this can be a problem area (by me at least). Agree that recommending the use of a gallery here contradicts the para that refers to 'not flooding an article with images'. Nimbus (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops! I see now that the penultimate para covers this so I agree the last para could go. Nimbus (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is good. These can be adjusted/clarified in the future if needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course – everything is subject to change and adjustment over time! Do we need to wait and get more input then, or can we "go live" now and use any later opinions to adjust the final result in place? - Ahunt (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's what I was getting at. This does not have to be complete to start with. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay let me post it on the page, less the last para and then you can all wade in if you think it needs more changes. - Ahunt (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice one! I expect the infobox image guideline might get tweaked for the better in due course, Great job chaps! Nimbus (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I wanted to add my thanks to everyone – I think this was a model in cooperation and consensus building – it worked well! Thank you all for participating. - Ahunt (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Democracy eh?, Marvellous!! It is worth looking through the archive of this page, there is quite a lot of previous discussion on images, some of the points could be used to polish the guidelines. Somehow none of those discussions and proposals made it to the project page. Nimbus (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that in many cases it just takes one or two people who will see an issue through and not let it get stale and remain unresolved – the more the better, however. - Ahunt (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Captions
A ruckus has sprung up on F-16 Fighting Falcon article over what makes an acceptable caption. The talk page discussion centers on two philosophies: Davegnz’ belief is that “Captions tell the history of an aircraft – if you are going to have a picture of an aircraft then you need to tell its story and background – this is only common sense if not for readability then for accuracy in reference.”  An example of the captioning Dave prefers can be found to the right.

Other editors have countered that his approach leads to “information overload” and that the history of the aircraft belongs in the main article text. Furthermore, his particular captioning style employs unexplained acronyms and abbreviations which are probably undecipherable to the non-military aviation expert. Still, if some of this content enhances the information value of the caption, there is also a question of what approach to employ for non-military aircraft. (I would note that the approach he is encouraging runs into problems with non-US aircraft.) Yet another issue is whether captions should be left-justified or center-justified. Thoughts and recommendations, please. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Fantastic and fair summary Askari Mark – thank you! The only point I'd add is that User:Davegnz's position also seems to be that it's OK to build external links into image captions. The left- vs center- justified captions issue is something we discussed in the recent past, and Infobox Aircraft and Infobox Aircraft Begin both now support centered short captions and left-justified long captions. Centered captions are the norm throughout pretty much the rest of Wikipedia. --Rlandmann (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I find the caption as presented in the example to be confusing and not of the sort of content that belongs in an encyclopedia, in Janes perhaps but not an encyclopedia. I spent almost 20 years as a Canadian military pilot and I don't know what the caption means by "SW". What does "SW" tell you? How is the aircraft's serial number significant in an encyclopedia context? - Ahunt (talk) 11:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ordinance? Have to agree that less is more with photo captions. Nimbus (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we have to keep in mind that, while we have some avid scale modelers who make some great contributions here, that fundamentally Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia and not a modelling magazine. The kind of intense detail that would be appropriate in a modeling magazine may not be applicable here. As it says at WP:NOT PAPER:


 * "'A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text.'"


 * In other words, I understand this general guidance to mean that the all content, including captions, has to be comprehensible to a casual, non-expert, reader on first read through. - Ahunt (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If this is the case of dumbing down photo captions then we have to dumb-down the articles as well – to a non-aviation person, what does weight to air ratio mean??


 * 1) why have variation section??
 * 2) why have a specifications sections??
 * I am told by many that wikipewdia is a General Encyclopedia – if this is the case why have extensive sections on improvements and Service modifications (as some article do).


 * If you dumb down the photocaptions then you need to dumbdown the articles and get rib of the gobbygook (a technical term if ever there was one.


 * as far as links in the captions, tried doing it as a reference – but guess what, this did not work – but wiki policy states that a direct reference should take you to detailed information regarding a subject – clicking on the s/n will take you there.


 * One thing Askari Mark failed to mention is that my captions follow a standard set of rules:


 * 1) Aircraft type & s/n
 * 2) Tail markings and aircraft name
 * 3) Squadon assigned and location (or museum located)
 * 4) other information.

SW 20FW / 55th FS (Shaw AFB) Armed with air-to-air and SEAD ordinance.]]
 * Actually, the caption was: [[File:F-16 CJ Fighting Falcon.jpg|thumb|F-16CJ-50C-GD 91-0346

so for the picture above:
 * 1) F-16CJ-50C-GD 91-0346
 * 2) SW
 * 3) 20FW  / 55th FS(Shaw AFB)
 * 4) Armed with air-to-air and SEAD ordinance.


 * so it is an F-16C, Built by General Dynamics, flown out of Shaw AFB by the 20th Fighter Wing, 55th Fighter Squadron


 * It should be noted that the "other information" was the picture original caption – should also be noted that wiki links are often found in captions should why should direct links be excluded??


 * I also find it seriously frightning that someone who claims to be a canadian military pilot does not know what tails code mean (after all, Shaw AFB does train RCAF Pilots !) Davegnz (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To answer the question most directly – the amount of information that you would like to insert into captions is not consistent with an encyclopedia article, which is what we're here to write. Encyclopedias of aircraft typically provide specifications for the aircraft they describe (usually set off from the text); and describe variants (whether in the text, or set off from it). These are common features of encyclopedia articles, so the encyclopedia articles that make up Wikipedia follow suit.

I strongly sympathise with your view that the text of some of our articles also contains overly-detailed technical data on the aircraft they describe, but the answer to that is to rewrite those sections and/or those articles to bring them in line with what we would expect to find in an encyclopedia of aircraft, not to make photo captions as bad as the worst text excesses that you can find.

Is there a single encyclopedia of aircraft that you can refer to that regularly provides this level of detail in picture captions?

It also isn't helpful to try and characterise the level of detail in an article in black-and-white terms; ie, if it doesn't count every rivet then it's a "kindergarten" work. That's a terrible and inaccurate oversimplification; there's a wide range of levels of text between those two extremes. We're writing for the interested layman; not the "aviation historian". --Rlandmann (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope Canadian military pilots don't know what USAF tail codes mean. The public wouldn't have a clue either I suspect. We spent the whole Cold War learning Russian markings, not US. I was a deputy squadron commanding officer too, not just a line pilot. PS I was never in the RCAF, it disappeared on 01 Feb 1968, when I was nine years old. - Ahunt (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)



As most of the aircraft info is not really relevant other than the variant whats wrong with a simple caption explaining what the image is showing. MilborneOne (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)




 * many, many thing to answer


 * 1) Rlandmann mentions that the  " text of some of our articles also contains overly-detailed technical data on the aircraft they describe " is considered standard practice for a majority of the wikipedia articles (not just aviation but all of wikipedia – this is how wiki should be not and creating kindergarden picture books or dumbing down the information.  Wikipedia should be everyone and allow the final user to pick and choose what they want – thus if you have a four year old looking for information on the F-16 he should find it in the F-16 article – the same holds for an F-16 historian/ researcher.  Wikipedia is often the first subject usaully found when doing a google search – and needs to appeal to every level of expertise (and since reference material is essential, then accuacy in the captions is just as if not more important as having a detailed reference/see-also section.


 * 1) Is there a single encyclopedia of aircraft' that you can refer to that regularly provides this level of detail in picture captions? – Aeroflight (they publish an encyclopedia every year), Warbirds Worldwide is one magazine that tried to give the nuts and bolts of the information, Air Portfolios (Jane's), etc...


 * take a look at Aeroflights F-14 page: F-14
 * note the captions tail codes my god
 * F-104 page F-104 page – photo caption "83rd FIS F-104A 56-0791 in Taiwan in 1958"
 * can not have this in wikipedia -- oh noooooo.....
 * F-15 page F-15 Eagle


 * this should also show MilborneOne what I am striving for – more accuracy (ie s/n, marking, etc...) – I also note that MilborneOne photo caption is now 7 lines long (as opposed to my 5-liner and tells less details) – I also find it hard to standardize this type of caption. Once again,  tell me the history of this aircraft itself – this is found at: 91-0346 (again: who, what, when, where, why)


 * I find that more information is better, not less – if you have an idiot editor (ie me) that is willing to spend 5 hours doing research on photo captions then let me be – not forcing anyone else to follow my example, but not hurting the accuracy of an article when I add to the historical footprint of a type of aircraft




 * Ahunt is right – RCAF is out – Canadian Air Force (or Defense Nationale) is in (lets get rid of the Royals yea (but keep them on our money and stamps)). I worked Commercial Aviation (Mechanic, Trouble-Shooter, FE, CFI) for 20 years aviation historian for close to 40 and even I know what a tail code looks like (even Bloody Spitfires used code letter and markings) Aeroflights Spitfire page – Davegnz (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nobody has said the captions need to be standardised, nobody has said that the caption couldnt be seven lines. What has been said (more than once) that the detail you want to include can be included on the image page not a matter of accuracy more to do with relevance. For example the serial number of this particular F-16 is not notable and of no interest to the majority of readers but if they really want to known they can click on the image and find additional information. MilborneOne (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I direct you once again to the key point that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This is a specific type of text; just like "a newspaper article", "a children's picture book", "an article in an aviation history journal", and "a college term paper" are all specific types of text.

It is simply impossible for any piece of writing to be "everything to everyone", which is why Wikipedia encyclopedia articles are aimed at a general audience – the interested layman. This implies a level of comprehension and general knowledge probably roughly equivalent to at least part of a high-school education. For readers who don't have that level of comprehension in English and/or that level of general knowledge, we have a sister project over at Simple (compare, for example, Simple's article on the Boeing 747. For those who want more detail, there are ample books and websites out there that our References and External links sections should direct them to. The aviation historian is definitely not our target audience.

Once again, you make a comparison to kindergarten books. That's one end of the spectrum. At the other end we have publications like Wrecks & Relics, Air Enthusiast, Jane's All the World's Aircraft, and the specialist websites you mention; none of which are written for a general audience. In the middle, we have aviation works that are written for a general audience – a trip to a public library or non-specialist bookshop should show you plenty of examples. Air & Space might be another. When we clutter up an article with minutiae, we gradually decrease the signal-to-noise ratio and drown out the main points with excess clutter. We actually make it harder for the reader to make sense of what they're getting.

Aeroflight isn't an encyclopedia – it's a specialist website, so examples from there aren't helpful. Warbirds Worldwide wasn't an encyclopedia – it was a specialist magazine. Jane's publishes and has published a range of works, some of which are indeed encyclopedic (like Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation) and some of which are clearly not (like the annualJane's All the World's Aircraft).

More information may be better – or it may just be noise. It depends entirely on the information and the intended audience. Your comment on MilborneOne's caption is a great example. While the caption may be longer, the type of information provided is far more meaningful to our layman reader than a series of cryptic codes that eventually only boil down to identifying a specific airframe.

Like you, I'm amazed by and very grateful for the tremendous increase in the level of aviation history scholarship that has emerged in the last 15-20 years – but Wikipedia is not the place to publish this kind of detail. That's why specialty presses exist. --Rlandmann (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just for the record: I do happen to know "what a tail code looks like". But when I see a caption, like the one above, where one line of text says simply "SW" I don't associate it with a tail code. It doesn't give any indication what it is referring to. When I enlarged the photo I saw that the tail code also said "SW" so figured that the caption might be referring to that. I even know that tail codes refer to AFBs, but not which one is which. So this makes a line that says simply "SW" meaningless to me and I suspect other readers as well. - Ahunt (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To quote Davegnz: so for the picture above:
 * 1) F-16CJ-50C-GD 91-0346
 * 2) SW
 * 3) 20FW  / 55th FS(Shaw AFB)
 * 4) Armed with air-to-air and SEAD ordinance.


 * so it is an F-16C, Built by General Dynamics, flown out of Shaw AFB by the 20th Fighter Wing, 55th Fighter Squadron

Well then why not use your summary example? Compare at right:

Also, I doubt anyone would come to Wikipedia looking for information on a specific airframe, so providing it is wasted. Also I don't believe that anyone looking at a picture of an aircraft would wonder which airframe it is, especially if hundreds or thousands were manufactured. I think specific variant is the most detail required. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

On a personal note, I'm a pilot, so I love reading articles and getting details about their history. But I am not a military pilot, so I had no idea what SW was. As a pilot Wikipedia reader I can generally understand what I'm reading, but cryptic photo captions don't interest me or make me want to investigate their meanings. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There seem to me to be two issues here. The first is whether Wikipedia is meant to be a general encyclopedia or a specialist encyclopedia.  This is best addressed by WP:NOTTEXTBOOK:


 * That does not mean that the kind of serious aviation enthusiast detail should not be included, but it certainly gives guidance on how the substance of the article (and, thereby, captioning) should be managed.


 * This leads us to the second and related issue: If we’re to include such detailed information (Wikipedia not being paper), then how much of it should we include – and where should we include it?  Let’s start with the “where.”  Dave seems stuck on putting it all in the captions, but he has not made a case why – which is important when there’s more than one option.  In my mind, the fact that Wikipedia employs thumbnails for images rather than larger, higher-resolution images indicates that the thumbnails are intended for illustration, not history. Given that, the detailed information belongs in the description on the image's own page rather than the caption. That page even has its own talk on which further information can be provided and discussed. External links better fit on the image page than in the captions.  The details are then just one click away – which is how we handle the subtopics wikilinked in the article (so that we don’t have to have a detailed explanation in every article about what avionics, turbofans, etc. are).  Moreover, since multiple articles can use a single image, this centralizes detailed information.


 * As for what information, I wouldn’t mind any of the info Dave has diligently researched and added being included in the image page. In fact, I’d recommend adding manufacturer’s construction numbers (c/n) – a much more important piece of information to serious aviation historians than the tail code.  (BTW, since what tail codes are is generally unknown to readers without an aviation background, I’d recommend using the formula “tail code SW” to just plain “SW”.  In fact, filling out the Tail code page might be just the kind of project Davegnz would like to take on.)  As far as the aircraft article itself, I don’t mind the U.S. serial number or BuNo following the aircraft designation, but it should be in parentheses and not italicized.  Within the article and caption, I think the designation formula “F-16CJ-50C-GD” is best rendered “F-16CJ” or “F-16CJ Block 50” as that is what most readers will recognize.  (BTW, this particular example is incorrect as ‘CJ’ is not an official designation.  I also cannot remember the last time I ever saw a manufacturer designation ‘-GD’ on official procurement documentation; this is something I’ve only seen in aviation enthusiast publications.)


 * Does something like this sound like a reasonable compromise? Askari Mark (Talk) 19:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's quite right; any idea that Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia (like Britannica or World Book) is long since gone (if it ever even existed). If that were the case, we might be able to justify articles on perhaps a dozen different specific aircraft types (and a similar number of cars, ships, motorcycles etc). Wikipedia is best likened to a collection of interlinked specialist encyclopedias, (like Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation meets the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians meets the Encyclopedia of Anthropology etc).
 * Not every non-fiction work and not every reference work can be characterised as an encyclopedia, however, and encyclopedias of aircraft don't include the level of detail in photo captions that is being suggested here (nor some of the technical minutiae that fill the text of some Wikipedia articles). I would also suggest that the c/n is similarly irrelevant for a photo caption in an encyclopedia article in almost every instance.
 * However, I agree that there's no problem whatsoever with as much detail as possible going onto the image description page. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Dave, now that a number of editors have had the opportunity to comment and provide opinions, is it a reasonable compromise to provide detail in the form you advocate to the image information page? In that way, users who wish more substantial data "clicks" the photograph and will see the expanded reference note. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC).






 * Willing to do some compromising:


 * 1) Feel that both the aircraft type/model is important in the caption (ie F-16C)
 * 2) Feel that aircraft s/n is important in the caption (this tells who) – this should be in italic (to seperate it from the aircraft type)
 * 3) On the next line (line break) – other information as necessary – whether it be written as a paragraph or as single is left up to the editor.

This will at least, standardize the first line of all the pictures going into wiki-aviation.


 * I feel that the first line directly under a picture should be the aircraft type and s/n other then that, I am very much open to this compromise.




 * I also feel that an editor, should be allowed to use an external link to reference the information (just as we use a wiki link to reference) ((We have the tools, lets use every resource available to confirm what is being presented to the reader)) – again, in the above caption, the link to the Fighting Falcon home page is a very strong reference (one of the best I seen on the web)




 * I am not sure if all the information in caption under the picture is completely necessary. Do we really need to spell out it is armed with air to air ordinance, airplane in flight, airplane in a hanger – some of these captions are excessive with redundencies, etc...


 * Feel that adding the other information to the photo's home page is an excellent idea as this will follow the picture were-ever it is used.


 * FINAL RESULT -->>>


 * Was mentioned why have s/n's under pictures – I am not computer literate (Hey I worked commercial aviation – Ok) but if you type in an aircraft in google – by magic, articles with this s/n will appear – and if you have it linked to a picture even better for modelers, historians etc...


 * That's my contibution – every ok with that?? Davegnz (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And another "take" on trying to determine a reasonable compromise:



My reasons stem around: FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC).
 * 1) Full descriptor of aircraft type
 * 2) Brief description of action/event
 * 3) All self-evident information not provided (such as manufacturer, ordnance, etc.)
 * 4) Caption written as shortened form (usually not as a sentence, see item 2)
 * 5) Caption placement (optional)
 * 6) Comprehensive notation of image provided in the image description, including S/N (not necessary in caption)


 * I agree with Bzuk's rationale. MilborneOne (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Bzuk's proposal as well. Serial numbers and external links just do not belong in captions. See WP:External links which says: "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end and/or in the appropriate location within an infobox or navbox." – Ahunt (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Embedded external links was one of the reasons (amongst many) that the F-104 Starfighter failed a good article assessment recently, the comment is here: Talk:F-104 Starfighter. I agree that some useful information should be given in a caption, the discussion here seems to be how much is acceptable. I proposed this guideline Any captions should be concise and not overwhelm the image which was accepted and was placed on the project page with other guidelines only a couple of days ago. We agreed that none of these were 'set in stone' but that is what we have for now. So we seem to need to narrow down what 'concise' means. Nimbus (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I also like Bzuk’s proposal. Like Ahunt, I too prefer s/n & c/n to appear in the image document, not in a caption.  Frankly, I feel the only time the s/n should appear in the text itself is if an individual notable aircraft is being discussed – and unitalicized but in parentheses so that it doesn’t detract from the sentence flow and style; in such (rare) cases, the first time any s/n is used, it ought to be called out as “(serial number XX-XXXX)” and then with subsequent examples just “(XX-XXXX)”.  If it’s not clear to the non-expert reader, then it really belongs on the image page.  In that vein, I personally see no need for s/n or c/n to appear in an article itself; however, I do think that they are both of equal importance as they can be expected to be found in a great many aviation enthusiast sources – I just think they should both be in the image page. As for external links in captions, while I sympathize with Dave's opinion, as Nimbus points out, we're subject to a more Wikipedia-wide consensus here. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Are we now at a point we can conclude, I would suggest that Bzuks reasoning should be added to the image section and supplementary to the original commentAny captions should be concise and not overwhelm the image.. MilborneOne (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh please yes. And maybe the F-16 image with his caption as well. The way we're going, between this thread and the one on airplane/aeroplane vs aircraft, we're really setting ourselves up for feature status on WP:LAME. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)






 * Unfortunitely, removing the s/n then makes the picture generic and useless to historians / modelers – how many editor are going to open the picture file to add extra information (i.e. more work then necessary). A s/n identifies the aircraft / subject in the picture.


 * If you did an article about "Man O War" you would not put a caption under the picture that states "A horse that won the Kentucky Derby" If you did an article about Canada you would not place a picture with the simple caption " A country that has Mounted Police" -- then expect the reader to click on the photo to find out the picture is about Canada...


 * How Extremely Lazy does an editor have to be to avoid adding the aircraft s/n to a caption?? How much excessive file size does a 6 or 7 digit number add to file size??  It is unfortunite that too many wiki editors do not follow the 5 rules to writing a great article (or captioning pictures (again, for those who have missed this subject: Who, What, When, Where, Why) – the s/n identifies the Who and can not be seperated out from the subject (ie the picture).  Adding the s/n to the caption also aids in doing Google searchs – and will link a picture to a specific article (etc...)


 * You have to identify the subject whether it be notible or not – irregardless to preferrence. You guys asked for me do some compromising: - removing the one major historical links that state "This specific aircraft – here, now"  is not a compromise and can not be eliminated from the captions.


 * Therefor, I can not nor will not agree to eliminate the true, original s/n from the picture caption (on military aircraft).


 * The true s/n are an important link in identifing the surviving warbirds – many have fancy paint schemes that have no historical fact with the aircraft they are painted on and often this is the only way to identify an aircraft.


 * As far as Askari suggestion that s/n be called out – I have very rarely seen any picture caption with s/n XXXXXX for an AF aircraft, never seen s/n XX123 for an RAF aircraft – often see Bu xxxxx for US Navy aircraft – W/n xxx for Luftwaffe aircraft. It is unfortunite that Askari feel that aircraft s/n should be eliminated completely " i.e. I personally see no need for s/n or c/n to appear in an article itself " any true aviation historian / modeler is always searching for accuracy when researching a subject matter – Wikipedia is suppost to be about reaching out to anyone searching the web for information, not just a 7 year doing a book report about a F-16!


 * Again, when a s/n is called out it makes it searchable on the web and which makes the subject notible.


 * IT is unfortunate that Rlandmann feel that this discussion is lame (WP:LAME). If he feel that way then let's end this discussion right now with my original compromise.




 * I have wasted many hours trying to reach a compromise with certain editors – I feel that THEY have shown lack of willingness to compromise with me regarding this subject – I have tried unnumerable times to show with logic and facts that having critical points in the captions enhances the reference and historical accuracy of an article – only to have these points disregarded with silly arguments, backwards thinking and poor logic. It is thinking like this that drives people away from using wikipedia for "True Historic information" and also drives people away from contributing to wikipedia.  I am done with contributing to articles where the editors waste my time and efforts with their 1950's way of doing articles when THEY refuse to use all available tools to creat useful, fully articulate (and linked) articles that appeal to true aviation historians.


 * As Rlandman states: This discussion has become lame, redundent and a great waste of time and effort on my part- Davegnz (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Dave, the premise that historians will use Wikipedia for research brings up some interesting conjecture. Yes, I can see that happening. If a historian/scale modeller/aviation researcher wanted to get more detail, the "opening" up of the image would appear to be one of the first things that the individual would do, given that images are scaled to a small size. On that image page, a great deal of information can be sited. I recently did just that with Grant1's image caption of a P-40 (merely as an experiment) as like you, he often incorporates expansive captions, which I tend to "prune" a bit. I wasn't sure about your example of "Man O' War" being relevant, would his stats be included in a caption? which is what essentially a S/N provides, the basic production code of an a/c. Take a look at the caption choice provided again. Could you live with it? That's the essence of consensus, it's not compromise or defeat, it is the willingness to accept a position that is favoured by the majority. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC).




 * Bzuk, I s/n simply and cleanly identifies which particular aircraft is being highlighted (with its picture) – I have no problem with doing captions as either lists (simple) or paragraphs (as in the example for the F-16CJ – but the s/n (for military aircraft) has to go with the caption – again, when you do a google search it can (hopefully) lead one to a revelent article(s)


 * Since everyone likes to reference Wiki Rules and policies I am going to play the big one: Ignore all rules – this nonsense about whether or not to have s/n in the pictures captions " prevents me from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, so I will ignore it.". If there's a better way to do something than what the rules say, do it the better way – My picture captions will have the formate I agreed on with the compromise – I am not going to subject a reader to hunting for a s/n when it is simply very easy to add it to the caption and be done with it – Davegnz (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Dave, I'm not sure you want to go that way, when it leads to another biggie WP:BRD which inevitably bogs down in that quicksand of WP:TEND now that we are throwing wikiisms about. Face-grin.svg Bzuk (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC).

New look at the caption:

Other than the obvious, can you live with this version? Bzuk (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC). --->




 * It does not matter to me where the aircraft s/n is displayed in the caption – (might be something left to the editors of the article) what I have been stating (right from the beginning) is that the original s/n  must be part of the caption (ie identifying the aircraft involved). If someone like me wants it centered that should be ok – if someone wants to include it as a written para. should be ok -  - my biggest point is that in that military aircraft must be identified with its original military s/n.




 * and WP:BRD leads to BRD misuse – especially with BRD misuse – I feel that everytime I try and make a reasonable verifiable, historic edits – certain wiki-nazies feel their way is the only way to create on wikipedia – and this leads to ANI because of their abusive tactics.



I have noticed you like my pointer ;|






 * minor change from Bzuk suggestion – added a link to verifiable source – again, depends on the editor.


 * and so we come down to:


 * 1) Full descriptor of aircraft type
 * 2) Original military serial number
 * 3) Brief description of action/event
 * 4) All self-evident information not provided (such as manufacturer, ordnance, etc.)
 * 5) Caption written as shortened form (usually not as a sentence, see item 2)
 * 6) Caption placement (optional)
 * 7) Comprehensive notation of image provided in the image description.

Davegnz18:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

A few things. This is WikiProject Aircraft, not WikiProject Military Aircraft, how is this going to be applied uniformly across all aircraft articles? Also, I'm just guessing, but I'll bet that a lot of aircraft pictures here and on the commons can't be identified to a specific serial number. For example File:Pf12.jpg, File:P-51A in Flight.jpg, File:Watson2.jpg, and File:Alaska Airlines 737-900.JPG. Also, I still don't understand what someone gains from knowing the serial number of this aircraft that they couldn't get from reading the article about the aircraft. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a quick show of hands: is there anyone here who agrees with Davegnz that serial numbers should routinely be added to photo captions? Is there anyone here who agrees that captions should be allowed to include an external link? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Negative to both suggestions from me. Just click on the image for all the details you could possibly add. Nimbus (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * User Trevor MacInnis just validiated part of my point – that is, most editors do not research what they put on the wikipedia – the image he posted File:P-51A in Flight.jpg is in fact either a P-51B / C.  What I am stating is that when a picture with a clear, obvious military s/n is visible then you should add it to the caption.






 * What a lot of users are missing the point here is I am not forcing others to do, but that users like BillCJ deleted information that I added – I wanted to add verifiable / reference information to photos relating to the F-16 page (as above), I wasted 5 hours creating detailed photo captions – only to have this information destroyed because BillCJ did not want this information on THIS page (these captions offended HIS ideas).  Since BillCJ and Rlandmann felt that they were the only editors to choose what another editor should add to an article (with a revision war), this discussion regarding what is appropiate content regarding photo captions. 




 * As an editor, I am not asking / forcing others to add military s/n's to captions – but what I want is the option to add detailed / verifiable information without the fear that many hours of hard work is not destroyed because of a narrow minded few – I think any wiki-editor can see this conceeded this point.




 * As far as airliners, lets take a look at the Boeing 727 – the original caption tells you nothing – if I was writing this it might state:




 * This tells you the actual aircraft type, n-number and aircraft name – and gives you a link to find either more information or more pictures – much cleaner, and give you a lot of information without doing more searching – which is all enyone reading wiki really wants (information quick and easy on the eyes).




 * The we have Rlandmann asking " Is there anyone here who agrees that captions should be allowed to include an external link " – why is it that editors like this decided that they do not like something, delete others contributions, then and only then decide to make a rule that favors their point of view (and forces others to obey) – External links are an approved and acceptable tool in wikipedia and are approved when you use it to take you a solid reference point relating directly to a subject. Certain editors are offended that using any external links will break-up the flow of an article and I say putting any restrictions on using links violates wiki policy of being verifiability.


 * We have Nimbus stating "Just click on the image for all the details you could possibly add" – well this breaks-up the flow of an article – what's the difference between clicking on a picture to get the information and clicking on an external link in the caption (or article) – both take you away from the article, and both take you to a place of reference (and both are approved tools in wikipedia). Davegnz (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I usually click on images so that I can see them better and in the hope that there might be more information in there than the caption gives (there usually is), I could make the thumbnails appear bigger but I prefer to leave them at the smallest default setting so that they don't interfere with the text. I suppose it comes down to project standards, we don't have 'standards' as such but we do have some guidelines. I could imagine a new and enthusiastic editor asking the question 'why are the captions different in this article different to the captions in that article?' I am just a lone voice, I try to do things the same as the majority of editors here with occasional bursts of hopefully unobtrusive personal style. At the moment we are part of a larger general encyclopedia, if we were an aircraft only encyclopedia I would gladly join you in adding all the details that enthusiasts might want to see. Nimbus (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Davegnz, you've misunderstood the purpose of my earlier question. Adding external links within text and captions is not generally accepted practice, either within this project, or within Wikipedia more generally. If, however, you could show that other editors agreed with you that it would be a good idea to start doing so, then you would have a case to start building consensus towards a change in practice and policy. I posed the question to check my belief that it's unlikely that anyone else agrees with the desirability of such a change. The silence has been deafening.


 * No-one is saying not to use external links for Verifiability; if there ever were a reason to include a serial number in a photo caption, you could add a footnote to the external online source in the normal fashion. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)




 * Nimbus – the reason the captions are different different between articles is because their are hundreds of individuals each with their own ideas on how to write articles – just like there are numerous authors at Borders and other books-stores; not everyone is popular, some are radical, some are moderate, some write childrens and some do scholerly work – that is what makes wikipedia interesting. In many ways, I see wikipidia as an island in the internet storm – you google something and 90%+ of what you get from the search result is garbage (try Googling " Apollo 20 " for the cancelled Apollo flight) – the first thing that pops-up is the wiki article the the majority of the search result is garbage about Alien Ships etc...)  I feel that wiki needs to be better and smarter, as much references as possible --- Just my opinion on this subject.


 * Rlandmann – you mention "The silence has been deafening" – I think a vast majority of the wiki-editors do not care one way or another whether to have external links or not – a vast majority of the wiki editors want to be left alone and as long as their articles are historically correct, verifiable, and accurate, feel that their work should not be destroyed because someone has a difference about rules and regulations (many of which were created long after wiki was started) – If external links were not allowed in articles, then I am sure they would not be in the wiki toolbox. If you feel so strongly about eliminating external links, why do you write the creaters of wikipedia and have this tool removed -


 * It has also been mentioned to add this material to the photo's home page – my big question is how soon wil some wikiphoto nazi start deleting this information as unappropiate for the photo page (I can just see 6 + months of work by numerous editors being deleted because this in unappropiate and not notible for the photo page) Davegnz (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nothing at Help:Image page indicates that descriptive information about the image would not be allowed. You have not gained a consensus for adding external links or serials to captions I am not sure keep repeating the same points is getting anywhere. Rlandmann suggested that the information could be added as part the reference/citation for the caption. As a compromise perhaps you could consider a standard format reference/citation style to add the supplementary information like serial number/registration and units which would then appear in the reference section. A standardised footnote would not distract from the flow of the article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You are still missing my point – I am not "forcing" any other editor to add the s/n to the captions I just want to allow other editors to have the choice to add this information – with out the fear that someone like BillCJ will come along and delete 5 hours of work just because he does not like s/n's (or other information) in the captions.


 * I consider his revision of the F-16 article vandalism when he deleted the photo captions that I added – Instead of improving (per wiki rules) he did an wholesale deletion of another editors work (which is a violation of wiki policy).


 * Why not show me with an article and let me decide exactly what you are proposing (regarding the reference/citation) Davegnz (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * One I tried earlier is at List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft, pre-1950 if you look at the entry for 18 February 1943 for the XB-29 it has a footnote [32] which at the bottom of the page show up as Aircraft information – XB-29-BO, serial number 41-002, manufacturers serial number 2482. Not a caption but just to give an idea of what I am suggesting. Also this doesnt endorse using serial numbers in the actual captions! - see what you think it doesnt have to look exactly the same. MilborneOne (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My take on captions: captions should be useful at the first reading, and relevant for their place in the article. for example the F-16 picture assuming it is being used in an article as a general illustration of the aircraft would be usefully captioned as "F-16 CJ carrying air to air missiles and anti-air over Iraq." GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Davegnz, you know very well that external links are allowed in articles – either in the "References" section, or the "External links" section. No-one has suggested that no external links should ever be used, or that the software should somehow prevent you from adding external links. The software also won't prevent you from creating an article titled Da Kewl Band Me and My Friends Made. but that doesn't mean that it would be a good idea to do so. All anyone here has said is that a photo caption is not an appropriate place for an external link.
 * As for what other editors think, don't you find it significant that in this long debate, and the similar one that preceded it over the P-61 article, that these suggestions have failed to find a single supporter? On the other hand, I think that just about everybody who regularly contributes aircraft content to Wikipedia has weighed in at one point to state their opposition to the ideas presented.
 * For that matter, given the oppostion that you encountered in the P-61 article, BillCJ's reversion of your edits in the F-16 article should have come as no surprise. You already knew (or ought to have known) that this style of caption was an unpopular and unsupported idea.
 * Finally, "vandalism" is defined very carefully here on Wikipedia, and repeatedly making false accusations of it against your fellow editors is inappropriate. An article may sometimes be improved by removing content just as surely as at other times it may be improved by adding content. The consensus here seems to be that removing excessively detailed photo captions improves an article.
 * In short, if you contribute material outside the boundaries of what consensus has determined to be reasonable, you may expect that material to be removed. It should be abundantly clear where that consensus lies. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Rlandmann, you state: "that these suggestions have failed to find a single supporter" – I find it extremely humerous that the only people who have written comments are the same 6-7 people over and over again – this does not mean that YOUR ideas are the correct one, only that you can garner and push through YOUR ideas because of this small minority of the real wikipedia users – The majority of the Wikipedia editors can not be bothered with you small way of thinking and generally ignore this random ramblings of a thankfully small group of editors – if you can get a different bunch of wikipedia aviation editors who do not parrot back the same small thinking then maybe you thoughts and intentions would be more relevent.


 * It is unfortunite that this same small group like to abuse the rest of wikipedia aviation community with their nitpicking that is more harmful to wikipedia project. I just wonder how many serious editors have been driven away, never to contribute to this project because of this abuse Davegnz (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Dave, you’d be more successful in encouraging acceptance of your views if you didn’t turn around and slam everyone who doesn’t agree with every one of your points. With minor changes, your entire diatribe above could be rewritten and turned against you, but focusing on your open embrace of refusing to assume good faith or avoid personal attacks, your antipathy toward working to achieve (and then abide by) any consensus that doesn’t include full capitulation to your personal agenda, and a promise to be disruptive to achieve your aims.  Have you thought that that may be the reason why “only” 6-7 other editors are willing to try to work with you?  It’s difficult to take seriously the claims of someone to the effect that they represent the greater “wikipedia aviation community” when they can’t be civil or abide by other Wikipedia policies – and frankly, you’re in no position to condemn others as being “nitpicky” when it’s your own idiosyncratic nitpickiness that made this an issue in the first place.  I don’t know if it’s your custom to always carry a chip on your shoulder, but Wikipedia is not therapy.  If you really are the serious historian you style yourself to be, then keep it civil and collegial.


 * To return to the issue at hand, the lack of serials in a caption doesn’t “then make the picture generic and useless to historians / modelers” – especially if the information is available on the image description page. Face it, WP uses thumbnails for images; this means if you want to see the image clearly, you have to click on it – and voilà, you get the picture in a more viewable image as well as additional information.  The only way the lack of an s/n in the caption itself would make it “useless” to historians / modelers would be if they were computer-illiterate, which few, if any, are these days. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

What the readers make of these pages
Continuing on the caption/level of content detail theme I thought I would share this from the archive of the Boeing 737 talk page two years ago. An obvious spoof edit (seems to be the same guy using two computers next to each other) and I had a good laugh when I saw it but he knows what he is talking about and is obviously 'in the trade'. Ann O'Rack is a pseudonym for anorak, a well known British term. Quite subtle and funny from an intelligent person but I take it as a warning should I start writing about tyre sizes, etc. I think he was trying to make a point in his own way (was it one of you guys?!!!) All the best. Nimbus (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That is funny – I think he is making fun of us. - Ahunt (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * For sure, but the terminology is frighteningly correct, we all need a good laugh now and again. Nimbus (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The message being, "don't take ourselves too seriously..." IMHO Bzuk (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC).
 * Preeecisely! Was just looking at the many aircraft/airplane/aeroplane/plane discussions. Stopped me from writing another 'quality' article unfortunately and I should not get involved. Is it Inuit language that has twelve different words for snow BTW?! Nimbus (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well over 200 individual words for snow in Inuit and other languages of the Canadian Arctic (from my time as a Language Arts instructor, I remember researching Inuit traditions and culture for a book the class was studying...) Bzuk (talk) 04:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC).
 * It gets close to the Taoists making fun of the Confucian debates on the "nature of redness". - Ahunt (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL~ ;-)  Askari Mark (Talk) 02:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am a Blue person anyway ;| Davegnz (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Horsepower in piston engine specs
Updating some engine specs and just wanted to remind everyone that there is a difference between PS and hp (see horsepower). If you are using a contemporary European source for your data, chances are the numbers are in PS and not hp, although usually there is no way to tell. The difference for a typical aircraft engine is not gigantic but significant, about 14 hp per 1000. - Emt147 Burninate! 06:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * While true, we shouldn't second guess what the sources are saying – if the sources say hp we cannot tell whether the correct conversion from PS (or cv) has been applied or not.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct. However, non-German sources generally use the term "hp" to mean PS or cv. - Emt147 Burninate! 00:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Variant heading levels
We have had a debate started that I think is of general applicability to aircraft articles, and should be moved here for more general consultation and consensus.

Back last winter I added a lot of variant details to a number of articles, including Cessna 172 and Cessna 150 amongst others. Initially as I added variants, I organized them as sub-sub headings using "=" style section headers. Some editors felt that the large number of variants for some aircraft, like the 172, resulted in an excessively long table of contents (see this for an example). The solution was to change from "=" headers, which result in table of contents titles to ";" headers, which don't (see [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cessna_172&direction=next&oldid=183065194 this] example).

I have forgotten which editor it was who initiated the use of the ";" headers and which article it was initially seen in. At the time I saw the logic of using this technique to reduce the size of the tables of contents and subsequently used the ";" format in other articles with long lists of variants. Some, like Cessna 150, Cessna 172 and Mooney M20 use this, while others with long variant lists, like UH-1 Iroquois do not.

Paul Beardsell recently changed the 172 article headings back to "=" style and I changed them back to ";" style. This has resulted in this discussion.

Since the project guidelines are rather vague on this, I would like to open up this debate to the members of the project and see if we can get a consensus on how to proceed.

The question is this: Should aircraft articles with long lists of variants use the ";" heading style over the "=" heading style? - Ahunt (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would rather that there is not a *prescription* over the whole of the aviation article space as what to do or not to do. The problems with the Cessna 172 article is that it is becoming difficult to edit/fix details of one particular model because the section is too long.  Also, I believe, the addition of material specific to one model is being made difficult for the same reason.  Better, in my view, to have one sub-sub-section per variant/model and to suppress an overly long TOC using the appropriate TOC parameter.  Although I have *NO* problem with a long TOC.  Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For my part I don't mind if we do it either way. I have done it both ways at different times. I would like to see a decision to make it consistent, however, if only to avoid one editor doing it as "=" and then another editor making it ";" and then it getting reverted, etc. - Ahunt (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose it depends on how much detail is in the list. If its just a few lines per variants, then ";" seems reasonable – if there are a few paragraphs then a sub section (or a sub-sub heading) would be better.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Also note that at least in regards to the UH-1 article, there is a running attempt and associated debate to split off the "=" sections into a separate UH-1 variants article, which already exists. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The overwhelming majority of articles use the ; or : style, sometimes incorporating a subsection or two if a couple of different model numbers are being presented in the one article. That's de facto already the standard, so we should probably formally "enshrine" it here, since the issue has now come up. It's really just a matter of doing things consistently, as Ahunt says.


 * The bigger problem with some of these articles is using the "Variants" section to present detailed history, when conventionally, this is only for a short, at-a-glance summary of the different members of the family, with their detailed descriptions incorporated into the main prose of the article. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sometimes two aircraft differ only slightly yet they have different model designations; sometimes two aircraft differ significantly yet they share the same or almost the same model designation. Who sets the standard here is not us but the aircraft manufacturers.  The Cessna 172A and the Cessna 172S are really quite different aircraft, there's 50 years of nearly continuous evolution, but the wingspan stays the same, the airfoil stays almost the same.  On the other hand the Piper PA28 shows more diversity – different wingspans, wingshapes, greatly varying internal dimensions also, a greater range of engine outputs (140 – 230hp), and a greater range of useful loads.  There is more variation in the PA-28 aircraft type than there is between the TB-9 thru TB-22 yet, because the manufacturer would have it that way, they are different models.  We *cannot* hope to have the same treatment at WP for the 172, the PA-28 and the TB- series.  It seems to me we are imposing a standard view over what is not standardised in the industry.  I strongly suggest that we do NOT have a standardised treatment but do what is best, plane by plane.  Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the original question was about the effect it has on the length of the TOC. I can imagine a casual reader looking for a particular sub-type and not necessarily realising that it will be found under 'Variants', the 'tabbed browsing' idea mentioned by RL earlier could be a way round it in the future by having a separate TOC on the 'Variants' tab. Who knows where the progress will be with Wikipedia. Quite a few aircraft articles are now being split off into variant articles as the page length gets too long, seems to be enough material for the Cessna 172 to do this, it could then have headers that appear in the TOC for each variant and be expanded at the same time. The Supermarine Spitfire is an example of a single crowded article that in the last few months has expanded into at least two variant articles (I've lost count!). A collapsible TOC (like the navigation footer navboxes) might be another solution but that is for someone far cleverer than me to propose! If you want to find something in a book then you go to the index (which is usually at the back strangely), good books have good indexes. Maybe the thought at WP:NOTPAPER helps. Cheers. Nimbus (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to sum up where we are with this issue at present and keep the discussion moving towards a decision (even if it a decision to not make a decision), here is what I think we have so far:


 * 2 for not specifying a policy to allow flexibility as some aircraft variants are quite similar while others are not
 * 1 for specifying something as a policy, if only to prevent revert wars
 * 2 for splitting long variants text into separate articles
 * 1 for specifying ";" or ":" as the standard

I hope I didn't miss anyone there?

So far we don't seem to have a strong consensus, although perhaps we could find a "middle-ground" solution that would, if not make everyone happy, at least not make anyone excessively unhappy. (That is the Transport Canada working definition of "consensus", from my years of creating CARs as part of CARAC meetings. At the time I called it the "equal level of misery consensus".)

Does anyone want to add anything else? - Ahunt (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I understood the standard for variants section is ; the problem is that in some articles what has been listed as variants is really stuff that should go in the design and development section (some of the older us mil articles are prone to this). Variants was really meant to be just a summary of changes. If a number of variants needs that much text then it probably needs a Foo variants sub-article or if it is one that has a lot of text it probable needs a new article. So I think the problem is not the format (which in my opinion is fine with a ;) but defining the content of the variant section. MilborneOne (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Both bulleted entries (or * + bolding) and/or section labels (=== Variant 1 ===) are fine with me. I think either should be OK, except specify a limit on the number of variant subsections, say 6 or 7 as a guideline.  Go to bulleted entries for more.  Maybe mention that the bulleted entries should be kept to 2-3 sentences (or some reasonable amount). -Fnlayson (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought I would let this go through the weekend to see if anyone else had anymore to add.


 * I think MilborneOne has a point. I have just made some revisions to Piper PA-44 Seminole along the lines he has suggested with a general development section and then a ";" variants section. This seems to work okay, mostly because there are only two variants to this particular aircraft. I have also done some work on Piper PA-34 Seneca where I have taken the opposite approach and told the story of the development through the variants themselves. This could be changed to eliminate the sub-headings in the development section and then add a "variants" section like the PA-44 article. Doing the same changes to the Cessna 172 article would be more challenging, just due to the large number of variants.


 * Perhaps if we get some thoughts from everyone on the Piper PA-34 Seneca versus the Piper PA-44 Seminole approach we can come up with a consensus agreement for the guidelines here. - Ahunt (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A little different arrangement here: Boeing 747 with subsections under variants. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that example! The Boeing 747 is basically in the same style as the Piper PA-34 Seneca, but with sub-sub-headings for the sub-sub variants. As I mentioned earlier I really don't mind which approach we take, but my own preference to decide on one approach to avoid edit wars over it. - Ahunt (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a last call for input on this issue. I am planning to sew it up probably later on Sunday 14 Sep 2008 as I think the debate has gone on long enough and we haven't found much consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 15:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've always used the semicolon/colon format. It's compact and formats nicely. The subheadings just create TOC clutter. - Emt147 Burninate! 21:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Having wrestled with this same issue on the F-16 Fighting Falcon article, I can appreciate the advantages and drawbacks to using either standard subsection or semi-colon formatting; accordingly, I doubt there’s any real cut-and-dried “standard” that we should apply. I agree with Paul that when there are many variants it’s a royal pain editing variant sections built upon semi-colon formats, yet long TOCs are an annoyance, too (particularly since we can’t right-justify them due to the infoboxes).  My feeling is that in these cases we need to look at whether the length of the variant sections represent an “undue” weighting compared to the other main sections; if so, then the variants probably need to be moved to a separate article.  This is especially true if the variant descriptions have begun to become somewhat more developed.  I also think that the semi-colon format should only be used with brief descriptions.  This has been my approach with the F-16 article.  The main article has the semi-colon list format with short descriptions and the F-16 variants article uses standard subsectioning. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Askari Mark: thanks for summing things up there for us all! In re-reading what has been written here by everyone, it is clear that we don't have agreement on any single way to proceed, but I think we still need more guidance than is currently given, so this is what I propose: the variants section be amended to add the following to the short text already there.


 * "Due the to great variety of aircraft types and their variants, no single style guideline will necessarily suit all articles. Editors creating variants sections should choose one of the following approaches for the section:


 * For just short, one or two line descriptions, of a longer list of variants consider using ";" titles and indented ":" paragraphs to keep the article table of contents short. For an example see Piper PA-44 Seminole or Cessna 172.
 * For a shorter list of variants or those with longer descriptions (more than one paragraph) consider using ===subheadings=== and accept that a longer table of contents will result. For an example see Piper PA-34 Seneca or UH-1 Iroquois.
 * For a very extensive list of variants that overwhelms the rest of the article consider creating a separate "Variants" article. For an example see B-17 Flying Fortress variants.


 * To avoid edit wars, any changes from one established method of listing variants to another in an existing article should first be discussed on the article's talk page to gain the consensus of editors working on that page. There may be good reasons why the existing style was chosen."

If there are no objections I will add this to the Varients section in this article in a few days. - Ahunt (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My misgiving is that inserting this into the guideline will endorse using the Variants section to hold long paragraphs of text, when this really belongs in the "Development" section. To my mind, it's better for the guideline to remain silent on the point – the most egregious examples need to be cleaned up one day. Let's remember that we're talking about a handful of articles amongst some 4,500-5,000 aircraft – I don't think that we need a special paragraph in the guideline to "justify their existence" in a particular form. Let's not over-legislate on a problem that really, barely exists! --Rlandmann (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point. I have just been hoping to create something to avoid a revert war like we had over on Cessna 172. I guess we can always rely on WP:BRD. - Ahunt (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There's also IAR. I'm in no way suggesting that section levels aren't the best way to handle some articles like the 172 and UH-1 in their present state. Perhaps all we need to do is to agree to collectively "turn a blind eye" to these few anomalies until they get rearranged into a more conventional layout? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That's basically why I proposed adding some guidelines that give total flexability and discretion to the editor who is looking at the individual article, at least within the three possible outcomes we have all mentioned. Right now we have a great number of all these approaches and standardizaton may not be helpful in telling the story of each aircraft type in the most effective manner. It may be just best to leave the guidelines as they are and come back to this discussion at some point in the future when there is a more pressing need to decide a way to make all the articles look more uniform. As I said near the beginning, I personally don't really favour any one approach, I just want to avoid someone changing an existing article from ";" to "=" and then someone else changing it back again. - Ahunt (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to thank everyone who has participated in this discussion, in particular Paul Beardsell for raising the issue in the first place. Unless anyone has any final comments here, I think we are done. As can be seen we have covered the subject pretty throughly and have not reached a consensus on how to proceed, beyond the existing guidelines. Perhaps, at some point in the future, we will find a need to make a decision on this issue, but for now you are on your own for how to handle variant heading levels. In the meantime, my own personal wish is that editors not change the heading level system used in any existing article without first discussing it on the article's talk page and explaining why you think it is necessary. - Ahunt (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I like Ahunt's 3-point suggestion. In keeping with Rlandmann's observation, perhaps we should consider adding it as advice rather than guidance. Then we won't have to go through archives to recapture this experience-rich recommendation. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Accidents and incidents
Both the airport and airlines projects have recently agreed a definition for inclusion which is -

Accidents or incidents should only be included if
 * The event was fatal to either aircraft occupants or persons on the ground;
 * The event involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport;
 * The event resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry.

Can we gain a consensus to also adopt the same guideline and add it to the page contents guide? MilborneOne (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds great to me if that's a guideline. We're a little looser on the degree of the accident for aircraft that have had few hull-loss accidents, e.g. Boeing 777.  -Fnlayson (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Great definition – especially if it brings us in line with our two sister projects. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As they appear to be no objections I have added the definition to the guide. MilborneOne (talk) 09:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have a question about this guideline – perhaps one of the original authors can illuminate the intent for me. Is this list to be read as "and" or "or". In other words does an accident just have to have had fatalities or hull loss or resulted in changes to procedures, or must it be all three? If it is "or" then we seem to have a policy that can be used to include just about every aircraft accident other than minor ones. Either way I think the policy needs to spell that out for sake of clarity.


 * We have lots and lots of attempts to add fatal accidents for light aircraft to articles like this [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lancair_IV&curid=3237088&diff=224386510&oldid=223677391 one]. In the case of the Lancair IV there are many dozens of these kinds of accidents or in the case of very common aircraft like the Cessna 172 there are probably thousands of them. Clarity on this guideline would help revert these with confidence! - Ahunt (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Good question. I took it that the items are "or" conditions as most accidents do not result in changes (3rd item).  But maybe I'm wrong in my interpretation.  So that'd be good to clarify the wording. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

My thinking is that it reads like "or", othewise it would emphasize "and" but if so then we will have thousands of otherwise non-notable accidents added to article like this [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lancair_IV&curid=3237088&diff=224386510&oldid=223677391 one]. - Ahunt (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The wording does indeed look like "or", but then, it also doesn't say that every accident or incident that meets one or more of these criteria is notable; just that if it doesn't meet any one of these three, it's not notable. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Rlandmann: I would certainly agree with what you have stated, if it doesn't meet any of those three criteria, then it certainly isn't notable. I would think, however, that this guideline would be more useful if it said what type of accidents are notable. When I saw [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lancair_IV&curid=3237088&diff=224386510&oldid=223677391 this] today I was going to remove it – we get tons of these sorts of posts every month on many of the GA aircraft articles. These days I try to cite a link to a WP policy or guideline when I delete things, to reduce the chances of an edit war. So I checked here for the policy to cite and found that it seems to say that the accident should stay in the article. As noted above the Lancair IV has had a lot of these sorts of accidents. It is a high performance aircraft and there have been lots of loss of control accidents due to human factors. The basic question is collectively do we want these accidents all listed in the GA aircraft articles? A few of us just finished removing most of them from some articles like the Cessna 172? - Ahunt (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I agree 100% with everything you say, including the undesirability of including hundreds or thousands of GA accidents. I was just pointing out that this guideline as it stands doesn't act as a barrier to that. I don't know its full provenance, but it looks like it was formulated with commercial flights in mind; and makes sense in that context. It's not helpful for GA, and is completely nonsensical for military aviation, unless we want to list each and every shootdown of any and every military aircraft ever....
 * This probably needs to go back to the project to see if we can get some consensus on when a GA or military accident or incident becomes notable. The Disaster Management and MILHIST people may be able to provide some input too. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me that a slightly different policy would be needed for GA over airline & military aircraft articles. I will leave it to the "powers that be" to escalate that upwards then. In the meantime I think that Lancair IV example will go down as "not notable". - Ahunt (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well we seem to be back at this issue again [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diamond_DA42&curid=6332863&diff=232095809&oldid=205869846]. Can we perhaps just gain a consensus to simply add a section that would say:

"For accidents involving aircraft under 12,500 lbs the standard for whether they should be included is if they meet all of the following requirements:


 * The event was fatal to either aircraft occupants or persons on the ground and;
 * The event involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport and;
 * The event resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or airworthiness directives (or equivalent for non-certified aircraft)." – Ahunt (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Since no one objected to the above I am going to put it into the guideline page and see if anyone has any further comment at that point. - Ahunt (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems fair to me ... only I think I'll highlight the "ands". Askari Mark (Talk) 19:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing that! The "ands" are the most important parts in my mind! - Ahunt (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been looking at our accident-inclusion policy for light aircraft recently once again. I think it is working well and preventing the articles from being cluttered up with non-notable accidents, with one exception. There are a number of light aircraft accidents that include accidents in which famous people were killed. Some examples:


 * Piper Saratoga – John F. Kennedy, Jr.
 * Piper Comanche – Patsy Cline, "Cowboy" Lloyd Copas and Hawkshaw Hawkins
 * Cessna 172 – Charles J. Bishop
 * Beechcraft Bonanza – numerous

I believe that even though these don't make the current criteria that they should remain in the aircraft type articles because the connection between certain deaths and the aircraft type is notable. For instance JFK Jr's death will always be associated with the Saratoga.

Therefore I propose that we should amend the current light aircraft accident inclusion criteria to add one more so the whole thing reads:


 * Light aircraft account for many more accidents and incidents than larger aircraft, most of which are non-notable. For accidents involving aircraft with maximum gross weights under 12500 lb the standard for inclusion is:


 * the event involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia

or if this is not the case then it meets all of the following requirements:


 * The event was fatal to either aircraft occupants or persons on the ground; and
 * The event involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport; and
 * The event resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directives (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft).

Thoughts? - Ahunt (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Lacking any objections over the course of a week I will add it in. - Ahunt (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

More fun with captions
Another lenghty caption is being added at Messerschmitt Bf 109,[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Messerschmitt_Bf_109&diff=236064485&oldid=235980356 per this diff]. This is an odd one, with the user claiming the lenghty caption was approved at the image's featured image review, and that is must be used in the articles. In my opinon, the caption is far too long for the Infobbox, and while it might be OK in a regular thumb box in the mnain text, I fail to see why such a lengthy caption is needed in the article, as all the info should already be on the image file page. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That editor made the comment about the caption remaining in the article at the end of the FIR. No other editors commented on it. I don't think that quite establishes a consensus for the rationale the editor uses to enforce maintaining that caption. There is no policy "enforcing" captions on image pages to be used on article pages. I haven't run across a guideline for it, either. Frankly, I find the "enforced" caption to be poorly, grammatically constructed. I would recommend finding a different pic for the infobox and move the disputed-caption featured image further down in the article. --Born2flie (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sidebar code with template works in "Show preview", but not after "Save page"
The Wikipedia Help desk (bottom of page) identified a problem with code used for this page.Mugs2109 (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)