Talk:List of aircraft by tail number

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 October 2015. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the aircraft project.
	This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Impossible Task

They are and have been many hundreds of thousand "tail numbers" (or registration/serials) over the last ninety years. This article is attempting the impossible and i would suggest it should be deleted.MilborneOne 20:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Reinyday removed my notice of proposed deletion with the comment 'this list is only for aircraft with Wikipedia articles, not all aircraft'. If this is the case then the article should be renamed to reflect this, and I would propose that it should be List of individual aircraft with Wikipedia articles. Note that the term 'tail number' is not always used in industry to refer to the registration or serial. Some of the aircraft on this list are 'mentioned' in articles, and they do not have an article of their own (ref the C-5s for example) so by Reinyday's criteria should be removed. Brings the total on this list down into the hundreds !. MilborneOne 16:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We don't make references to the Wikipedia in the Wikipedia (please see Wikipedia:Avoid self-references). However, there are many lists limited to Wikipedia content. For example, List of songs over fifteen minutes in length is limited to songs whose artists have Wikipedia articles. This article is not "impossible". It exists and I have included most articles mentioning tail numbers (that are indexed by Google), but I haven't finished some of the crashes. There are many lists with hundreds of entries (they get broken up; please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists)), but I do not think this list will get that big any time soon. — Reinyday, 20:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this is a list of all aircraft who are mentioned in the context of other articles of Wikipedia? This doesn't seem to be encyclopedic (right term?) nor possible, as there are still a multitude of aircraft listed. Also. some smaller airlines have a list of their entire fleet, with each plane mentioned. Do they therefore get mentioned? What mention makesa plane worthy of being on the page? For example, the Jetblue planes are only mentioned because their names are different in pattern from the rest of the fleet. Bok269 21:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has anybody defined this article yet with reference to Bok269 comment, is this list for aircraft that have their own article or aircraft that are mentioned in any article ? MilborneOne 22:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed aircraft that do not either have a dedicated article or involved in a multi-aircraft accident. MilborneOne (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

intro and organisation

I've just tagged this introduction as being too short. Specifically, I think an expanded intro should contain:

A summary of the inclusion criteria (seemingly this is individually notable aircraft or aircraft involved in notable accidents)
An explanation of how the list is organised (seemingly this is alphabetical by country for the military sections, and alphabetically by the first letter of the tail number for civil aircraft).

More generally, I think it would be better to eitehr split the civil lists by country (e.g. have a section heading for G - United Kingdom, NC - wherever, NX somewhere else), or to add a country of registration column to the tables. I have a slight preference for the former, but not a huge one.

Also, a custom, more compact table of contents would make the article much better.

Given the differences between the organisation and what makes the aircraft notable (generally), it might be better split the civil and military lists into two articles? Thryduulf (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NC and NX are both American registrations. Mjroots (talk) 11:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some good ideas, just to note the original idea was only to list aircraft registrations/tail numbers/serials that relate to one article, that is articles about individual aircraft and that feature only one aircraft (hence air crashes). It was not the idea to list every notable aircraft that are just mentioned in other articles. So really one plane articles only. I dont have a preference as to format you are welcome to have a go and see what it looks like! MilborneOne (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who did a major reorganisation of the list to give it its current format, I think the current system is good enough. That said, I've got no objection to re-organising the civil list by country as long as it's not me doing the reorganisation. Bear in mind that some countries no longer exist, and others have changed their registrations over the years (eg, Canada from CF-xxx and CG-xxx to C-Fxxx and C-Gxxx respectively). Some UK B class markings are also included at locations other than "G". Mjroots (talk) 11:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to re-organise the civil section into countries if that is the consensus, it would keep the same format but just have table for each country rather than letter. MilborneOne (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that tables per country would be better. The fact that registrations have changed, countries don't exist etc, should be summarised in the article introduction. Where necessary, a short (probably no more than 2-3 sentences in most cases) introduction could be written for specific country tables. Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Over to you, Milborne One! Mjroots (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem I will give it a go, just give me a few days. MilborneOne (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spacecraft

I note a few spacecraft creeping in. Maybe these would be better as a separate section at the bottom of the article, arranged by country? Mjroots (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure they need to be included, the shuttle OV numbers are just internal NASA designations and not what would be deemed a tail number/registration/military serial number. I would suggest they can be removed. MilborneOne (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like List of spacecraft would be a better home. Mjroots (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed and added to the list, relevant WP informed that list needs expansion. Mjroots (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft in lists of accidents

Currently, the list only covers aircraft with individual articles. Should it also include aircraft that are listed in lists of aircraft accidents by type, such as List of accidents and incidents involving the Vickers Viscount? Mjroots (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO this list could get out of control if we include aircraft that don't have independent articles. Mark Sublette (talk) 11:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 11:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I dont think we should extend the list beyond aircraft notable enough for an indiviudal article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point - in - fact : There are a whole slew of articles that have not yet been cross-referenced that have clearly identified serials - do not worry about List aircraft when there are plenty of as-yet unlinked aircraft w/ distinct historical identities and/or cross-referencing... Mark Sublette (talk) 13:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 13:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]