Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 11

WT:Air

WikiProject Aircraft talk — Archives

Another Infobox attempt

AzaToth just inserted another infobox into F-117 Nighthawk, Template:Infobox_Aircraft. Can we please discuss before trying to revert the community consensus? --Mmx1 21:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better to have an infobox than have inlined text as it is now. _→AzaToth 21:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any justification for that, or just an opinion? If you absolutely must have an infobox, the parameters included must be the same as that of {{Airtemp}}; ie, main and alt for each parameter. This is non-negotiable. However, specifications should not be included as infoboxes are meant as a summary of the article and not a replacement for article content. Specifications are undeniably a part of the article's content. ericg ✈ 21:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found that there is no reason for have both main and alt, because you can type it by your self (also because of ParserFunctions I've made some autoconverters to say for example 12 feet 4 inches (3.76 m) to display it in metres also), for example on said article, it's specified "Range: Unlimited (with air refuelling) (km)", so it's negotiable, you don't WP:OWN it. Specifications are things that fit perfect in a infobox, but everything specified in an infobox should also be specified in the article in a sentence or simlar (For example the plane i 6 metres long and weight 1,000 kg). _→AzaToth 21:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See above. To rehash the reasons infoboxes were rejected:

does not render well on varying page sizes.
specifications are too variable (and in many cases speculation and misinformation, w.r.t. military aircraft) and NOT a good summary of the aircraft.
the list of armaments is VERY long on most aircraft. Again, a poor candidate for infoboxing.

There is discussion of having an abbreviated infobox with basic characteristics, but the specifications are definitely not infobox material. --Mmx1 21:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the rendering about pagesizes is not a aircraft-project specific problem, so then you might go to WP:VPP to get consensus not to use infoboxes on wikipedia. Not all specifications should be in an infobox, just the basic, such things most aircraft in the class have in common or differ, the rest should then be specified in a specification section, as I made the template from the airtemp template there mostly specifications, but I think there could be more information that isn't exactly specifications. _→AzaToth 21:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, The infobox I made is exactly 300px wide, so if you have an 640x480 display (not many still have) you still have more than half the width left. _→AzaToth 22:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're suggesting we write the specifications out in sentence form? I'm curious - have you ever read a book on aircraft and seen this done? The format we're using now is standard across the industry for describing specifications. It's also not a valid assumption to expect users to understand your {{feet inch}} template. The dual entry (main and alt) system is used to allow more control over the specifications, and your air-to-air refueling example is the exception rather than the rule. ericg ✈ 22:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be forewarned: I am not taking sides on this. But just a note re: aircraft books. I've browsed one or two when I was younger, and you're right, the format you're using is what is generally used in books on aircraft. But this isn't an aircraft book; this is an encyclopedia. While mushing together statistics and info works well for a book targeted at an audience interested in aircraft, it might be worth considering that such a format doesn't always work well for casual readers. Just something to consider. Now, continue. :D —Locke Cole • t • c 22:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, Locke, and thanks for your input. :) Your point about readership is entirely valid — still, in previous discussions of other topics (some of them are still on this page, in fact) I've always seen decisions along the line of "write for enthusiasts/specialists, accommodate the casual reader". We don't dumb down or drastically reformat science or history articles, for example, when compared to classic examples of such works. Doing so means that as a source the Wikipedia can't be taken seriously; the recent comparisons of Wikipedia and Britannica (at least in my opinion) support this. ericg ✈ 22:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting the impression from the above discussion that Azatoth feels that Eric is trying to 'own' the aircraft specifications formats. Maybe this is so; it's entirely possible—in fact, I consider it likely—that a significant majority of Wikipedians believe that WP:Air should be forced into following the infobox format. However, the curent format is the result of a lot of discussion, and exists for very good reasons. The argument above that 'infobox issues are not problems specific to aircraft alone' does not do anything to deal with those problems. Members of WP:Air have dealt with infobox issues as we considered necessary. The point is, the text-based specs aren't just Eric trying to 'own' the specifications, they're the result of a lot of discussion.

<rant> You have to understand that for myself and Eric, we may seem like wikityrants, but mainly were frustrated. It seems like every other week, somebody comes onto this page and says 'we should have an infobox', most often taking action without paying attention to the long discussion that preceded the current standard. In essence, we're forced to argue our position over and over and over again.

I personally would rather have some form of the infobox mentioned above, at User:Ingoolemo/Aircraft inbox. But the simple fact is that infoboxes don't always work very well, especially in aircraft articles, the majority of which are stubs. I'm also aggravated by what feels like an endless stream of editors who unilaterally change our formatting standards.

Sorry if this seems a little bitter. I'd almost rather have this matter RFCed and get the verdict shoved down our throats by a hundred users than have to fight the same battle with lone editors every other week. </rant> Ingoolemo ^talk 01:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also forgot - changing from main and alt to a single field would require a huge amount of effort to re-convert all existing specs. If you want to manually change every current use of the template to a new standard, go ahead ;) (actually, don't without consensus!). ericg ✈ 01:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akhem, akhem... Doesn't this whole "leave our specs alone" campaign above add to our previous discussion on the infoboxes above? Sorry to say so AzaToth, but you're not going to win with the guys here. They've seen the light and they're going to defend it at all cost, apparently... Just a sidenote. //Halibu tt 20:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading below, and please try to work with us. You're making blanket statements and completely ignoring the fact that I tried to work with you on a compromise last week. If you want to hold another straw poll on whether or not specs should go in an infobox or inline, have at it, but try to remain civil and cooperative while you do so. Thanks. ericg ✈ 20:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case, I'm sorry if anyone felt offended by my comment above. I'm also sorry people assume bad will here in this project, but that's another topic. Finally, I hope some of the newbie-biters here are sorry for how they treat the new-commers. They should be IMO, but this is a completely different matter. I got carried away and I'm sorry for that. //Halibu tt 00:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the problems arose because of your "I want it, therefore I will do it, I don't need consensus" approach to the infobox issue. With over 20,000 edits in more than two years, you really should know better. End of discussion. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 01:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And not because of my "I want it, why won't we make it together" has met with "go away", "don't", "infoboxes are bad", "don't waste your time, we already have our template and don't want your meddling here"? Strange... //Halibu tt 06:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

non-specifications {{Infobox Aircraft}}

{{infobox aircraft
|name= F-117 Nighthawk
|type=[[stealth aircraft|stealth bomber]]
|image= Usaf.f117.750pix.jpg
|manufacturer=Lockheed Martin
|designer=Skunk Works
|first flight=18 June, 1981
|introduced=October, 1983
|retired=<!--active-->
|status=active service
|unit cost=<!--unknown-->
|number built=54
|variants=none
|primary user=[[United States Air Force]]
}}

Whoa, slow down. While I take a bit of offense at AzaToth's WP:OWN suggestion, I just re-read an earlier comment and I think we can agree on a non-specifications infobox format. Does that fit everyone's desires? I'm thinking up what fields would be appropriate – suggestions? Right now: manufacturer, maiden flight, number built, significant variants, major operators (not a list of every one), type, perhaps capacity, etc. ericg ✈ 01:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the sample with what I'm proposing. ericg ✈ 01:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the non-specs infobox. I prefer that the image be kept out of the infobox, as a 250 px high image taking up half the screen isn't as bad as a long infobox. I don't know about major operators. It tends to be the country of development or a HUGE list (thinking military and commercial here). I do think range and speed are interesting for most aircraft (I just consulted wiki to demonstrate why a C-130 couldn't catch up to a 757 at max speed, for example), but it gets into hairy issues of which number to cite. Also, I'd want to avoid the inevitable A380/747 or Typhoon/F22 range/speed pissing contest. --Mmx1 01:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, I think it's silly to say range is unlimited because of midair refueling, because that applies to everything in the U.S. military inventory - it doesn't stop naysayers from complaining (with reason) that the Hornet has limited range, for example. --Mmx1 01:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the article stealth bomber doesn't exist, I think it's an appropriate categorization. --Mmx1 01:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I offer comments on each of these suggestions below. At present, I don't think there are enough to justify an infobox, but I invite Azatoth to include some more.

Manufacturer
A standard article should begin with something like The '''{abbreviated manufacturer name} {aircraft name}''' is a [[{type of aircraft}]] built for {primary operator} by {full name of manufacturer}. Anything that belongs in the first two sentences of an article cannot in and of themselves justify an infobox. (Of course, if we did have an infobox, this is a natural inclusion.)
Maiden flight
Again, should be in the first two sentences, and thus cannot on its own justify an infobox, but should of course be included in one if it exists.
Entered service
Design process started
Number built
This counts as a point for the infobox.
Unit cost (in values contemporary with its entry into service)
Another point for the infobox.
Significant variants
As in a list? Well, maybe. The B-17G is generally considered the 'definitive' B-17 model, so perhaps this is a possibility, but as a list it would be significantly less useful than the 'variants and design stages' section in the body of the article.
My thinking was this could be a list of significant variants or derivatives with their own articles, ie AC-130 for the C-130. ericg ✈ 01:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Major operators
Another point for the infobox.
Type
See comments under manufacturer, maiden flight, etc.
Capacity.
Absolutely not; already in the specs, doesn't need to be repeated.

For convenience, can I request that additions and comments be included in the above list? Ingoolemo ^talk 01:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've broken this off into a new discussion and moved the sample here. ericg ✈ 01:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturer should be in the first sentence; Maiden flight is not usually in the first two. I know I typically use the first 2-4 sentences in military aircraft to discussion mission. I do like the ability to have the most significant info available in an infobox rather than buried in the text. Let's reserve Capacity/Tonnage as apropos. It is appropriate to determine the relative difference between a 737/757/767/777 or the C-17/C-130/C-141. Similarly I think speed and range are worthy, with a caveat that figures are approximate. --Mmx1 01:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That I agree. _→AzaToth 01:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't like it for all of the aforementioned reasons. Regardless, the specs have to go -- it is nonsense to have the specifications listed twice within the same screen, doubly so because top speed and range are about the least useful numbers you can get about the airplane (the flying characteristics are much better defined by aerodynamic parameters such as zero-lift drag, lift/drag ratio, airfoil profile, etc.) - Emt147 ^Burninate! 05:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For you perhaps, but not for the usual reader. _→AzaToth 07:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't address the issue of repeating specs twice. On a shorter page, the inline specs and the table will end up side by side. It takes 15 minutes to become educated about the significance of the aforementioned aerodynamic characteristics (I'm working on the pages) and it will make a dramatic difference in your understanding of aircraft performance. If the role of Wikipedia is truly to educate, we should not be perpetuating misconceptions. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 17:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support the inclusion of specs in this infobox, for reasons outlined above. I will vote for an infobox which only summarizes non-specifications data, if only to stop the constant discussion of this topic. ericg ✈ 17:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions: Use variants only for special variants like AC-130 (if template used in C-130 Hercules). Do not list range or other data as this should belong to the specs section of an article. Do not use the term major operators, may be misleading and/or too many of them to be listed, use the first operator/the operator who payed for this plane's development. The F-117 was payed for and is used only by USAF so USAF should be the Operator. The JSF needs to have more because it's a joint/Co-development, also the Eurofighter or the Tornado. --Denniss 17:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with the variants. I would only picture it being used for variants with their own article, like the E-3 Sentry or AC-130. I'll change major operators to primary operator. ericg ✈ 18:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some optional fileds defining predecessor and successor? for example Saab JA 37 Viggen is the sucessor of Saab JA 35 Draken and predecessor of Saab JAS 39 Gripen. _→AzaToth 18:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is in the related content section at the bottom, or in the body. I'm not sure it makes sense to include it in an infobox. However, add them to ingoolemo's list above, and we can maybe run it through a survey and see what everyone wants included. ericg ✈ 18:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On an other note, should it be F-117 Nighthawk or F-117 "Nighthawk"? _→AzaToth 18:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nighthawk doesn't belong in quotation marks. ericg ✈ 18:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would nix the variants section. This is moot since there is a separate variants section/page in the article and it's a recipe for a very long infobox. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 19:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I like the suggestion above of listing only variants with a separate article. Ingoolemo ^talk 19:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The variants will get confusing. It will be a matter of minutes before someone lists all 30 MiG-21 subvariants. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 19:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to formatting the infobox, I'd like to make a brief suggestion: can we set both text size and width in pixels, so that it will be consistent on all browsers? That way, we can minimise its size and obtrusiveness as much as possible. This may not work on all browsers, but the addition of an image will stretch the table to fit the image. Ingoolemo ^talk 19:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad idea - pixels wind up being fixed and are an inaccessible sizing format, blocking zoom. If we're shrinking the font already, we shouldn't be shrinking it with pixels. em or %is almost guaranteed to have a better chance of consistency between browsers due to wikipedia's global font-size settings. ericg ✈ 19:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only way for pixels to work is to make the infobox very skinny, 150-200px max. The issue with percentages is that you may end up with a mega-wide box at high resolutions and very cramped text at low resolutions. Which is again why I don't think we need an infobox at all.

Infoboxes are great for things that need to be defined within a complex classification, i.e. plants, animals, chemicals, planets, because they let the reader see at a glance where the subject fits. None of this is relevant with airplanes -- we merely have people who want infoboxes because they are pretty and fashionable.

Considering that Sylvian Mielot and I spent a very large number of hours converting over a thousand articles to AirTemp to attain a uniform look to aircraft pages, anyone who wishes to implement these massive changes has to absolutely guarantee that they will spread these changes to close to 2,000 articles in an expedient manner. (I'm strongly opposed to this and I absolutely will not be involved).

Finally, before any of this is implemented on any page, we need a consensus from WP:Air and any other concerned parties on Wikipedia. This is how the current layout came about and I don't see why infoboxes should get an exception. Thus, I urge you to remove the infobox from the F-117 page and move it to a test page in your userspace. In 24 hours I will revert that page to the current WP:Air standard. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 22:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is saying we're replacing airtemp (at least, not anymore). There's no reason to even mention the conversion of thousands of articles; this would be an optional supplement, and would of course require a straw poll before being adopted as WP:Air-sanctioned page content. All I'm asking is for you guys to cooperate with the creation of an infobox - if we're involved, we can ensure that it doesn't overlap other content or become mandatory on every page. Let's hash this out, take a poll, and then place the results in our page content section as a guideline - if we've voted to keep infoboxes out, then we can point and say, 'look, it's right here'. If we vote to adopt an infobox as a summary, we can do the same, and ensure that it doesn't bloat. If it's short - under 15 lines - it won't be any more awful than {{Infobox Company}} or {{Infobox University}} - both of which are quite common and, I hate to admit, quite unobtrusive. ericg ✈ 23:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The infobox on the F-117 page is decent although I would prefer it to be narrower. I still don't see any reason to use it and mine will be the dissenting vote on the issue. Of course, if it's adopted I will respect the WP:Air consensus and play along. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 01:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding the Airplane to disambig

Moved here from Talk:Fixed-wing_aircraft since it wasn't getting any feedback here. Someone suggesting translating material from the german page de:Flugzeug, which roughly translates to aircraft. If you look at the page, it goes over the various types of aircraft. Why not turn the Airplane article from a redirect into a page that outlines the different types in small stubs, and then directs to the main articles, which would be rotary, fixed, etc.

The OED defn of aeroplane is: "A heavier-than-air flying-machine supported by such planes or wings and mechanically driven."

--Mmx1 01:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for it, but I don't sprechen sie deutsch. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 02:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ich kann nicht Deutsch sprechen. sprechen Sie Deutsch? is a question meaning 'Can you speak German?' :) Ingoolemo ^talk 03:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the assumption is that I and others know enough about aircraft to write the content; I'm just using the German article for ideas on what a well-formed article should look like and be organized. (Google does an adequate job of translating the first 20% or so of the page). It's not so much translating but borrowing the idea.--Mmx1 02:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, something brought up (separately) on the fixed wing talk was that there had been a significant fight over whether or not the article should be Airplane or Aeroplane, resulting in the unhappy compromise of Fixed-wing aircraft. --Mmx1 02:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point something out (using the obligatory & overused 'google search results count test'):

Results 1 - 20 of about 6,870,000 English pages for aeroplane
Results 1 - 20 of about 70,100,000 English pages for airplane

It doesn't change (much) if you use google.co.uk; I think it's safe to say that the overwhelmingly more common term is 'airplane'. Also, not to be nationalistic, as I'm the last person to walk the jingoism line, but: I seem to recall that the first practical airplane was designed and flown in the United States... ericg ✈ 02:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to rely on memory. There is an online encyclopedia. See: First flying machine and List of early flying machines. bobblewik 14:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An online encyclopedia! What a novel concept! ;) ericg ✈ 14:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term 'aircraft' is far more common. bobblewik 11:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Results 1 - 10 of about 195,000,000 for aircraft WolfKeeper 14:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft encompasses all vehicles which take to the air. This includes fixed- and rotary-wing types, as well as dirigibles and other lighter-than-air designs. Airplane/aeroplane is strictly limited to fixed-wing aircraft, unless those silly brits are doing something weird.. ericg ✈ 14:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Aircraft

Must be a cold day in hell today but I really like Infobox Aircraft in its current state and I will support it. If adopted, I will include it in my AWB task-o-rama (very straightforward, actually, although as always a tad labor-intensive). Shall we do a WP:Air consensus? - Emt147 ^Burninate! 17:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I'd like to voice my concern over actually showing the caption - 95% of all of these captions are going to be entirely self-descriptive. You know what I mean; the infobox says "Airbus A380", and the caption says "An Airbus A380". Serious? This seems a little bit redundant and duplicative. ericg ✈ 05:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Captions are optional. If left blank, nothing will show. I agree, a redundant caption is not necessary but almost always there is something to be said, like identifying the airline/military service, variant, etc. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 05:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primary user parameter

What guidelines to we want to adopt for the "Primary user" parameter in the infobox? Current user? Most numerous user? E.g. The biggest user for the F-4 Phantom II was USAF but they retired the type 10 years ago while it's still flying with Luftwaffe. Who is the primary user? What about civilian airlines? - Emt147 ^Burninate! 17:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say largest current user(s), with a maximum of maybe four, listed on separate lines (much like {{Infobox Company}} does with 'key people' or 'products'. This would keep it reasonable while being decently informative. Which is, after all, what it's for. I personally hate those giant lists of users that most articles have, and I pawn them off into "List of operators of..." every chance I get. This would give some information without readers needing to open another page. ericg ✈ 18:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So tell me this: What would be the entry for Boeing 777 or Boeing 747? Just nitpicking. --Mmx1 18:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, British Airways and JAL are almost certainly the largest 747 operators in the world, but I would probably leave the field blank for both aircraft. Just because it's there doesn't mean it needs to be used; I mean, it's not like Cessna 172 qualifies for the field either. Once you get too many users, it's simply not a logical thing to have. ericg ✈ 18:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on listing a select handful of primary users. Like Mmx1 said, airliners are a problem. What I expect to happen is edit wars because someone's favorite airline or nation is not in that list. A written consensus on the WP:Air MoS page would be helpful. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 18:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A written consensus sounds good. I was aware of JAL but not of BA. --Mmx1 18:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Aicraft consensus discussion

This topic is for reaching consensus on adopting (or not adopting) Template:Infobox aircraft in its 22 April 2006 19:05 UTC revision, as demonstrated on the F-117 Nighthawk page, for general use within WikiProject Aircraft. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 17:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support - Ericg and AzaToth did a superb job adopting the infobox to group's wishes. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 17:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Denniss 17:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - ericg ✈ 17:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...but not as a requirement. It's probably only appropriate for the longest of articles. I wouldn't include it in AWB; instead, look through the highest-profile types or most detailed articles and add it as seems right. ericg ✈ 17:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's not for 3-line stubs. I'll put it in AWB because I can always take it out if it's not appropriate for the given page (that's the manual part of AWB'ing :)). - Emt147 ^Burninate! 18:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looks suprisingly good. --Mmx1 18:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looks nice. — ceejayoz ^talk 18:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it's clean and concise. -Dawson 18:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - so long as it stays short, clean, and doesn't turn into a second {{airtemp}} — McNeight 18:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hence the heated debates above and a reference to a specific version of the template in this discussion. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 19:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle - I would strongly recommend adopting an infobox format which includes the type of content (or suitable extracts of it) as would be found in the aircraft summary section of an indisputably authoritative source, with a reference link if possible to that source. The International Standard for this sort of information is (or should be) Jane's All The World's Aircraft, I would think. That sledge-hammer of an authority should help run off some of the worrisome "fancruft" and other nonsense that inevitably seems to creep in. Jane's includes the type of information that defines the aircraft's basic dimensions and mission, and would be of particular interest to those who are "skilled in the art" as they say. So - I would go with ... WWJD? [1] --T-dot 19:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It looks nice. The one thing that should be specified though is what exactly all of the catagories mean. I noticed the F-117 listed as "Stealth bomber" maybe some more general catagories should be used, such as simply "Fighter" "Bomber" "Commercial Jet" etc, just to maintain order throughout the aircraft pages. --KPWM_Spotter 19:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Something like 'bomber, stealth' would probably work well. ericg ✈ 19:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I wish that the name at the top of the infobox were bolded or set in a bigger font. Willy Logan 19:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support Agree with Willy Logan, name should be bold. Also should be 'primary users' (plural) --PopUpPirate 20:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The name is now bold. Or should be if you've got CSS turned on. ericg ✈ 23:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, looks good. Still concerned about Primary User, edited to give option of plural. Ie, Eurofighter. --PopUpPirate 23:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've amended how the primary user bit works - now, if there are others, simply add them to the |more users= section and it automatically adds an s to 'primary user' and inserts the other users below the primary. ericg ✈ 00:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support But then I liked the original info-box before that air-spec templatebusiness GraemeLeggett 20:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
support Looks tidy and gives basic info, without being too technical - the trouble with technical spec boxes can be that, for some aircraft, the info won't be available, which would lead to empty boxes. This format is fine by me (anyway - nothing that can't be changed at a later date - eh?) Ballista 21:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
support - but maybe country of manufacture would be better instead of primary user - think F-5 or Tornado. Additionally, what about type? How is that decided? e.g. the F-117 article says stealth fighter bomber, the infobox says stealth bomber. Minor point perhaps...--Nobunaga24 21:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that the Tornado was built (and, I believe, assembled) by a consortium of three countries. Fortunately, there are only three of them, so we could list them all. The F-5, however, like the MiG-21, is used by dozens, and wouldn't be an appropriate aircraft for a list of users. ericg ✈ 23:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice. Great to have a template – one of my major problems with the old stats boxes was the different format page to page. I would just like to caution against it growing and growing and...... to the point where it fills half the average page. Mark83 22:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks neat, and provides useful at-a-glance information for readers. I'd like to second the previous comment though, that this mustn't be allowed to keep growing like the old stats box did. — Imp i 23:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support---Spot87 00:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderfully simple, reasonable, clean, and useful. Ingoolemo ^talk 03:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looks very nice.--Sylvain Mielot 08:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Fine by me. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with several comments - Great job. In fact I once envisaged to create the same kind of "lil box". Aside, let me say something. Firstly, as mentioned, I also have a slight concern about "Primary user(s)". Perhaps better only filled when just one (or two?) major operator can easily be specified (or, be imagined and agreed by everybody without any conflict): Viggen? SAF. A-10 or B-2? USAF. Spitfire? RAF. Bf 109? Luftwaffe. But wait, F-16 or C-130? (USAF? right?) UH-1? (US Army?) and, as talked, a lot of civilian aircraft. I don't oppose the field itself. On the contrary, probably it's useful especially for non-aviation enthusiasts. Secondly, in the same context (i.e. considering the non-expert reader's convenience), adding the country of manifacturer might be, if not always, helpful as Nobunaga24 said. However, it'll reduce the beauty of simplicity now being achieved. Also, "USA" under "Boeing" or "Sweden" under "SAAB" are obviously (obviously? well, strongly suggested to be) redundant. Nevertheless, "Brazil" under "EMBRAER" or "Czechoslovakia" under "Zlin" may save some time for some people. Finally, "Unit cost" may appeared to be a catchy and interesting number for ordinary(?) people, but on the otehr hand I'm afraid it'll call never-ending arguments in some cases... - marsian 19:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support- It's very nice and clean while it provides some basic information that is needed right off the bat. Personally, i would suggest putting some of the information on armaments or performance into the table as well, but if that can't be done, it's fine the way it is currently as well. Ctifumdope 03:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. Sorry to say so, but it would be a waste of space IMO. Perhaps it's my own experience only, but when I compare infoboxes on military equipment, I usually look for some basic specifications, some hard facts. Wingspan, power, length, anything that makes me feel the difference in one glimpse. On the other hand most of the data that could be put in that template tells absolutely nothing about differences between similar planes. While comparing, say, Airbus A310 with Boeing 767 I would expect to see a mention of the fact that the wingspan of the earlier is 47.6 m, while the latter has 43.9. However, your template would tell me only what is usually already obvious from the plane's name: that the earlier was made by... Airbus, while the latter by Boeing. That's definitely not what Infoboxes are for. //Halibu tt 18:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wingspan is a very minor stat. The important ones like speed and range are highly variable and subject to fancruft. The infobox would also tell you when they first flew and that they are comparable aircraft as they're of the same type. --Mmx1 18:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because aircraft operate over a wide performance envelope, dimensions and numbers like top speed have little utility in comparisons because they oversimplify the picture and ignore the significant nuances of performance. Aerodynamic parameters (zero-lift drag coefficient and drag area, lift-to-drag ratio, airfoil profiles) are far more useful but limited in availability and potentially difficult to comprehend. Of the commonly listed specifications, the most useful ones are wing loading and power/mass or thrust/weight ratio although again these oversimplify the big picture. For civilian aircraft, parameters such as payload-to-gross weight ratio can be helpful. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 18:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention, it also is difficult to keep track of changes to a model over the course of its lifespan, which can alter such statistics vastly. Which ones would go in the template, the original design? The one currently in service? The one that had the most made? Its way too subjective, and the proposed template is clean and to the point where the article itself can discuss such statistics as applicable. -Dawson 19:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC in the past we've tossed around an idea of creating comparison pages, e.g. "Comparison of early World War 2 fighters" that would run side-by-side specs for Spit Vb, Bf 109E, A6M-2, P-40E, etc. Easy to do but care needs to be taken to avoid original research. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 19:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The dimensions of the plane are basic specs and as such tell the reader more about the plane than the name of some guy who was a lead designer - or company's name. But of course, the wingspan could change in time (mostly due to wear and accidents), while the name of the company is fixed and never changes, so you're right. An ideal infobox should inform the reader that Boeing 767 was designed by Boeing design bureau, is produced by Boeing company and that there is no primary user. How informative. Anyway, if it really is a choice between obvious or unimportant data - or no infobox at all, I'd rather stay with my vote, may I? Thank you. //Halibu tt 18:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what exactly do the dimensions tell you? They are static and give no indication whatsoever of performance or capabilities. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 02:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you think? They tell me whether the plane was big or small, wide or narrow. Such a basic set of data, found in almost every article on every historical piece of war machinery from planes to tanks and from trucks to handguns tell pretty all a non-specialized reader would like to know. Such basic data tell me whether the PZL.37B was faster than He.111, whether I-115 had a max ceiling high enough to down a B-17 or whether the Me Comet was faster than F-117. //Halibu tt

Aaand all of that information is available in plain sight just a pagedown away and not crammed into a tiny box on the right side of the screen. As noted below, the infobox is working out great for dates and production numbers because they are buried in the text. Specs are not. If you don't think the specs will be crammed, make a tidy 250 pixel-wide infobox containing the specs for something like F-4 Phantom II and keep it from being 15 screens long. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 01:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derived values

Does the infobox proposal include or exclude derived values? Calculating them seems like original research. bobblewik 18:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It excludes values other than 'number built' and 'unit cost'. That's it. ericg ✈ 18:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No specs in the infobox. Wing and power loading in the inline specs are derived but it's elementary math, not original research. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 02:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Annex a wikiproject

Since it is inactive, and to some degree or another within our area of expertise, I propose that we annex Wikipedia:WikiProject Launch Vehicles (may redlink due to incorrect capitalisation). Does anyone support this, and does anyone have any ideas about what exactly 'annexation' means. (Annexation is not an official Wikipedia process; it's a term I made up.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingoolemo (talk • contribs)

Annexation means redirecting or merging the other project's page to your own ;-) (It's usually best to get the assent of the other project, but this is sometimes impossible if all the members are inactive.) Kirill Lok s h in 23:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And so our humble empire shall grow and thrive. It's fairly aviation-related so I support it. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 23:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can do this: all of us who are interested can join Launch Vehicles, and then propose to make it a sub-project of Aircraft on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Launch Vehicles. Before the discussion is started over there, does anyone here have any objections to making ourselves the parent project to Launch Vehicles? Ingoolemo ^talk 19:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not even aware that there was a separate project for launch vehicles. I have been making edits to LV-related articles for a couple of years now without thinking about it. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed that the parent project of WP:LV be changed from WP:Transport to WP:Air. To move forward with this proposal, see WT:LV. Ingoolemo ^talk 01:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One last thought on the Infobox

So the infobox as it stands now is actually more useful than I thought it was going to be. First flight, service dates, and production numbers are VERY difficult to find in the majority of articles, and it is quite helpful to have that information explicitly stated somewhere. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 23:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One thing -- does the "active service" notation do us much good? Technically, the B-17 is still in service with a few operators! —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd only consider it useful if it's out of service, or if it's undergoing flight testing or certification. ericg ✈ 21:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more small thing to improve: the image caption should have a standard center command. --Denniss 10:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the captions look better left-aligned and this is the standard throughout Wikipedia. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 23:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No speculation template

If you are as tired as I am of having to revert "everybody knows x, y, z" and "so-and-so was probably this-and-that," I made a subst-able FYI template at Template:Nospeculation. The use is {{subst:nospeculation|pagename}}. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 07:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some additions to Airtemp

I have a number of alterations to airtemp I'd like to consider. (Apparently it's now at {{aircraft specification}}.) I don't necessarily support them, but I would like to have some talk on the subject.

Firstly, I would like to put the aerodynamic measurements Emt has been adding into the template itself. I know that these aren't always readily available, but in theory we could get our hands on them for almost any aircraft in existence. Seeing that we already have airfoils in the template, I think we should also add these very important measurements of a plane's performance?

Secondly, it might be worthwhile to replace 'weight' with 'mass' where the values given are masses rather than weights. I know that most sources use weight rather than mass, but I don't think that our change will cause any confusion—in fact, it should make the matter significantly clearer.

Thirdly, I think that we have enough three-view diagrams of aircraft (see commons:Category:Aircraft line drawings) to justify adding it into the airtemp code as well.

Fourthly, are cannon/autocannon guns, or are they cannon? I think you could make a good case for them being guns (they're essentially oversized bullets with explosives, placed in oversized shells and fired by oversized guns), but you could also make a good case for them not being guns. Should they be differentiated from guns in the armament section?

The end (I think!). Please discuss. Ingoolemo ^talk 00:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airfoils are easy, there a website at UIC that lists thousands of them. The non-NACA airfoils are not as interesting because instead of a code describing the airfoil properties all you get is a meaningless name and maybe thickness. Other parameters are more tricky because estimating them requires specs that are not listed in most aircraft books. I'm working my way through a NACA paper from the 1950s on the topic of estimating aircraft performance, so I'll see what I can figure out. In the meantime, I would hold off on getting more parameters into the template.
Mass is fine by me if it keeps the units boffins at bay. :)
How much work will it be to convert all the current 3-views to the template? I haven't been following that aspect of pages at all.
Guns are guns. It's semantics, there is no mechanical difference between the weapons. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 00:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the aspect ratio can be almost-universally implemented using the #exp function since it is approximately (wingspan)²/wing area for monoplanes. The catch is that for multi-wing aircraft (biplanes, triplanes) you need to adjust the result by a (span efficiency factor)² somewhere in the 1.1-1.2 range usually, so the derived AR has to somehow be "smart" about whether it's dealing with a monoplane or a multiplane. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 06:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we use aspect ratio, I would much rather go for the more accurate "wing's span divided by its standard mean chord (SMC)." described at aspect ratio (aircraft). I agree with Eric and Bobblewik that such calculated values are arguably original research, and I'd prefer to minimise derived values as much as possible. Ingoolemo ^talk 21:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except I've never seen a published SMC for any wings and b²/S is a fair approximation for the purpose of illustrating the general aerodynamic characteristics. Since when is doing basic arithmetic "original research?" - Emt147 ^Burninate! 21:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly suggest that 3-views remain in the article itself. We're approaching the zone of severe bloat with airtemp, and there's not much reason to add yet another parameter for something so simple. ericg ✈ 13:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To keep well-meaning editors from adding |thumb to the images? To allow for a standard caption? I see where you're coming from, though, so I will promise not to add the 3-views to the template unless you give me explicit permission. Ingoolemo ^talk 00:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I had one more thing I wished to discuss: I would like to change wing loading from a ${\frac {mass}{\mbox{wing area}}}$ calculation to a ${\frac {weight}{\mbox{wing area}}}$ . Thus the units would be changed from lb/ft² and kg/m² to lbf/ft² and N/m². This is just because from the perspective of physics it's more accurate to think of the plane's weight, rather than its mass, resting on the wings, because all the downward force is caused by gravitation. However, if someone can bust out one of those 'industry standards' I'm so fond of babbling about, I'll gladly back down. Ingoolemo ^talk 21:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I've seen with wing loading values all use lb/ft² or the metric equivalent. ericg ✈ 21:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I dunno. Weight/area is confusing. It makes sense if you are talking about dynamic loading when an aircraft is pulling Gs but on earth in level flight it's nitpicking. I've never seen a source (including several NACA/NASA papers on the topic I'm reading right now) use weight/area. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 21:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I retract my proposal, then. Can't be interfering with my belovèd industry standards. Ingoolemo ^talk 19:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One final thing: why exactly is {{aircraft specification}} written in html? Is there any particular reason why wiki markup doesn't work?

This is just a preliminary question, because I've been thinking about the W3C standards. Wikipedia is supposed to meet XHTML 1.0 Strict—and it does, for the most part. But our template doesn't meet the XHTML requirements, because it doesn't include closing </li> and uses <ul> incorrectly. If we fix this, someone will need to go around and clean up any pages that the XHTML screws up. (I will happily volunteer for this. Hey, anything to inflate my edit count!) In order to do a proper conversion, many of the parametres will also have to be changed from wikitext to XHTML, and I would like the go-ahead to do that.

However, we should be able to meet the standards if we just migrate back to wikitext in the template—if it functions correctly, of course. Comments? Ingoolemo ^talk 23:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beats me. When I originally rewrote it from 10 template-within-templates to one, it used Wikicode and it sort of migrated towards HTML over time. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 01:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Well, if nobody leaves an objection in 24 hours, I'm going to test out the wiki syntax and if it works, I'll be switching the template back over. Ingoolemo ^talk 03:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain on this, but I'm willing to bet that wiki syntax is going to fuck with the #if syntax (actually, probably vice versa). We'll wind up with unrendered syntax and lots of linebreaks. Not, of course, that you shouldn't give it a try. ericg ✈ 04:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I did a test in my userspace, and the wiki syntax works perfectly. Ingoolemo ^talk 04:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No gamecruft template

This is getting old... For your subst-able pleasure. Template:Nogamecruft. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 21:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I softened the language a bit. The use of the phrase 'random trivia', however appropriate, almost guarantees a nasty shouting match. Ingoolemo ^talk 21:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did say "thank you" didn't I? :) - Emt147 ^Burninate! 21:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No aircraft left behind

I'd like to encourage a concerted push to add a photograph to every aircraft article. The modern and popular stuff is well covered but the odds and ends aren't. Don't leach Airliners.net or someone's personal photo archive please (that is, of photographs someone took, not of the stuff they gathered from Google and slapped their own copyright on), but I believe a single photograph per page for old aircraft that may not even be in existence anymore falls under the auspices of Fair Use (also see Wikipedia:Fair use) for illustrative purposes. Even for presumably US government work, IMHO the Fair Use tag is preferred to releasing an image into public domain because not every photograph was taken by a government employee -- a lot of it is manufacturer PR which is in fact copyrighted. I have created a template which should be included (not subst'ed) in the image description. The format is {{fairuseair|article name|optional parameter}}. The optional parameter is the word no which adds a comment that no examples of the aircraft in question have been built or have survived intact, therefore creation of an equivalent free image is impossible. And update the page to infobox, specs template, and related content templates while you are at it. Thoughts? Comments? - Emt147 ^Burninate! 03:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Image:Bell XF-109.jpg for an example. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea in principle, but I remember that in an earlier discussion someone disputed your fairuse rationale. We should investigate their opinion. Ingoolemo ^talk 03:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the discussion was at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft Archive 8#Aircraft images and it was largely unhelpful, as was this discussion Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Archive 2#Aircraft images. I have a hard time seeing anyone object to "a single image per article for illustrative purposes when no free equivalent exists." Aircraft are a special case because, as noted in the optional parameter comment, the aircraft itself may have been built in one example and scrapped 50 years ago. There may be (and often is!) only a tiny handful of photographs that were ever taken, using one for illustration on what's becoming the dominant aviation site in the world is reasonable. I'm not a lawyer but IMHO this is the correct and legitimate use of the Fair Use clause. In addition, the vast majority of these photos are PR shots made by the company or by the military and as such could be fit under the {{promophoto}} Fair Use clause, although the rationale presented in Fairuseair is less weasely. As I noted above, if the author is known, please ask them. Greg Goebel's page features a lot of photos from Paul Nann so obviously some authors do not object. But I dare anyone to tell me who shot that random Albatros V in a muddy field somewhere circa 1916. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have also raised this question in Wikipedia talk:Fair use#Template:Fairuseair. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a couple:

Units

If it works, I will be shifting {{aircraft specification}} back to wiki format (from XHTML). This may break some of our line-adding hacks, so I'll have to do a major cleanup effort. While I'm at it, I would like to make these changes as well:

Move the template to {{aircraft specifications}}, which I consider an unequivocally superior name.
Change power/mass measurements from kW/kg to W/kg, because the appropriate use of metric is to use the nearest prefix. Since most values will be between 1 and 999 W/kg, we should use W/kg rather than kW/kg (has been discussed before).
Add range and speed values in nautical miles and knots (respectively). This has been discussed extensively before, and my proposed standard is this:
1. For supersonic aircraft built in the U.S. and UK, Speed: Mach # (# mph, # km/h)
2. For supersonic aircraft built elsewhere, Speed: Mach # (# km/h, # mph)
3. For aircraft whose original speed/range values were measured in mi/mph (U.S. aircraft until 1970): Speed: # mph (# kt, # km/h), Range: # mi (# nm, #km)
4. For aircraft whose original speed/range values were measured in nm/kt: Speed: # kt (# mph, # km/h), Range: # nm (# mi, # km)
5. For aircraft whose original speed/range values were measured in km: Speed: # km/h (# kt, # mph), Range: # km (# nm, # mi)
I believe that the statute mile is almost universally deprecated in favour of either the nautical mile or the kilometre. There was a big long argument about this that I don't have the energy to go dig up, but I'm very convinced that the most effective solution is the triple-unit one, even though it violates WP:MOS. Ingoolemo ^talk 01:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. I'll keep an eye for anything busted. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 07:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have the following comments:

The UK does not use mph for aircraft speed. I do not know if it ever did.
The statute mile is not a permitted option in 'Annex 5' (the usual way of referring to the ICAO Chicago Convention on Units of measurement for air and ground operations). That may be what you mean by 'deprecated'.

"SI units are now required to be used for all quantities except for the continued use of the foot for the measurement of altitude, elevation and height. Nautical miles and knots are still permitted as alternative units to their SI counterparts for the measurement of long distances."

I am not sure what abbreviation should be used for knots. I think this was discussed a while back.
Good work.

bobblewik 09:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A knot is a unit of speed, abbreviated kt or kn. It is not an SI unit. It is accepted (although discouraged) for use with the SI. It is used around the world for maritime and aviation purposes.
— Knot (speed)

_→AzaToth 13:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given Bobblewik's comments, I have a number of alterations to the standards I propose above.

Give UK subsonic speeds as Speed: # kt (# mph, # km/h). Most of the American laity will probably want the mph value, even though it was never used.

I think that the remainder of Bobblewik's points are covered by my proposal above. Ingoolemo ^talk 21:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After the last discussion it was agreed to not use an abbreviation for knots. There's a wide inconsistency, with some references and manufacturers using 'kts' and others 'kt'. Wikipedia's claim that 'kn' is used seems to be unfounded. ericg ✈ 22:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tally on the specification survey came out clearly in favour of 'kt', see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/Specifications_survey/Tally#knots. (We know for sure that 'kts' is inappropriate, because unit abbreviations shound never include an indication of plurality.)

Also, am I correct in assuming that there are no objections to my first two proposals (renaming the template and changing kW/kg to W/kg where appropriate.)? Ingoolemo ^talk 22:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the discussion I was referring to. There is no SI-accepted abbreviation for knots, and kts is nearly as common as kts. Besides, three extra letters isn't really enough to justify abbreviation. I couldn't care less what the template is called, and I still maintain that derived values shouldn't be included, so have at it. ericg ✈ 23:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, too weird! I just looked and Spitfire V and IX pilot manuals list all speeds in mph (kt). But photos of all British cockpits dating back to the Gladiator and the Swordfish have the instruments in knots (yes, including the Spitfires whose manual listed mph speeds first). The only mph cockpit photo I have is from a Blenheim V. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 02:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really like to get a decision on the knots/kt thing before we go changing more articles (that's you, Ingoolemo). A lead of 3 votes (8 kt, 5 oppose - 3 kts / 2 knots, with several kts/knots votes going either way - check the original survey, your tally doesn't line up) doesn't, to my eyes, constitute consensus, especially considering how many more members the project now has and the fact that SI doesn't consider there to be an abbreviation for knots at all. ericg ✈ 04:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hookay, I just looked at several dozen cockpit photos ("Cockpits of WW2" and "Cold War" books) of all major British and American aicraft built from 1940 to 1980. All British airspeed indicators appear in knots. WW2 USAAF aircraft are in mph, Navy in knots, all post-war American aircraft are in knots. I think I'm going to eat my words from a while back and say that knots are the way to go as the primary units for airspeed on British and American aircraft. Mph should be included in the alt units for the benefit of American readers (just like we include metric specs for the benefit of the rest of the world :)). - Emt147 ^Burninate! 06:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good research. We have a reasonably uncontroversial guideline that symbols are unchanged in the plural, so I oppose 'kts' and 'kns'. I currently default to 'knot' as the symbolic form because I cannot decide whether 'kn' or 'kt' is better. There are good sources for each and it would be nice to have a universally accepted symbol. The SI authority discussed the issue at a meeting in 2004: Prof. Mills reported considerable correspondence on the subject of the symbol for the nautical mile. There is no internationally agreed symbol, but “M” and “NM” are in common use. It was agreed to include the symbol “M” in Table 8, and to give both symbols in a footnote. In line with this, the symbol “kn” was added in Table 8 for the knot, though again there is no international agreement. I provide that quote for information and do not necessarily agree with all it says. They may have reasoned that 'kt' is worse because it also means 'kilotonne' whereas 'kn' has no meaning in SI. bobblewik 16:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So nm is fairly straightforward but kt is controversial then, right? Let's just spell out the word knots. The extra disk space taken up on Wikipedia servers by this luxury can't be that bad. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 17:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully, I've only edited five articles, so I'll go through and change 'kt' to 'knots' (one of my sources also used 'kn'), as well as change the unit order to conform with Emt's research above. Ingoolemo ^talk 19:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing E-4B

This article is still using the old type of infobox I see, is there any more articles like this that is totally out of place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AzaToth (talk • contribs)

There are a lot of articles out there. My off-the-cuff guess for the number of aircraft articles in Wikipedia is 2,000 to 2,500, and fewer than a thousand of them have been updated to use {{aircraft specifications}}; even fewer use {{Aircraft Infobox}}. Whenever you see one that hasn't been updated, add {{aero-table}} to the article. This tag will put it it Category:Aircraft without proper specifications, where it will eventually be dealt with. Ingoolemo ^talk 22:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Range

Any good reference source usually lists 'combat range' and 'ferry range' for military aircraft. Because our template currently supports only 'range', we have to use a line-adding hack to include these two very important pieces of performance. The two most common formats are:

Format	Source
Range: # mi (# km) combat, # mi (# km) ferry	\|range main=# mi \|range alt=# km \|range more=combat, # mi (# km) ferry
Range: Combat: # mi (# km) Ferry: # mi (# km)	\|range main=<br/> * '''Combat:''' # mi \|range alt=# km) * '''Ferry:''' # mi (#km
Seeing that combat and ferry range are—or should be—almost universally used for military aircraft, hard-coding them into the template will allow us to do the following:
Combat radius: # mi (# km) Ferry range: # mi (# km)	\|combat radius main=# mi \|combat radius alt=# km \|ferry range main=# mi \|ferry range alt=# km

Since I'll be embarking on my massive cleanup project soon, I'll be able to implement this option. Any objections? Ingoolemo ^talk 22:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are going to leave in the existing range parameter, though, right? Otherwise we'll end up with a thousand broken pages. Plus you need something for the wee civil aviation folks. :) Are we officially renamed to "aircraft specifications" (plural) yet? - Emt147 ^Burninate! 02:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template source will be

{{#if|{{{combat radius main|}}}{{{ferry range main|}}}
 |{{#if|{{{combat radius main|}}}
  |* '''Combat radius:''' {{{combat radius main|}}}
({{{combat radius alt|}}}) {{{combat radius more|}}}
  }}{{
#if|{{{ferry range main|}}}
  |* '''Ferry range:''' {{{ferry range main|}}}
({{{ferry range alt|}}}) {{{ferry range more|}}}
  }}
 |* '''Range:''' {{{range main|}}} ({{{range alt|}}}) {{{range more|}}}

|}

I will move to plural in a few minutes. And what exactly is it that we need for the 'wee' civilians? Ingoolemo ^talk 02:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A non-specific "range" for airliners and GA aircraft that don't usually have combat range (plus the literature is not always specific about which range is listed). Since the original range parameter is preserved, this is a non-issue. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've just created an article for combat radius. Can someone verify if the definition is correct, and/or add additional information? --Henrickson 05:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

all these 'massive projects' going on

To everybody adding infoboxes and converting specs to the template:

Please take a step back and look at the bigger picture. Getting everything updated to standards is great. It's a job that needs to be done. However: it's not a job that needs to be done immediately. The priority should be improving the article content while we update to specs. I've seen countless articles updated with the infobox already that need other attention. The S-3 Viking article, for example, was just infoboxed. It's awful. No structure, no development history, weirdly placed content, awkward intro. If you add an infobox or template the specs, please take the time to skim the rest of the article – and, if it sucks, rework it up to a higher standard of writing. There's an awful lot of English as a second language-esque crap scattered around.

It doesn't take a lot of work. I've done a very little bit (diff) so far on the S-3 article, and it took me all of five minutes. Take the time to make our encyclopedia contain quality, not just quantity and consistent visual style. ericg ✈ 04:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it would be nice if we could discuss major changes (ie formatting/wording and units) here before unilaterally changing them. ericg ✈ 05:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. I know you weren't talking to me specifically but I'm sorry I got carried away with the infobox thing (needed a break from contents, I guess). I'll go back and finish writing the B-57 article tomorrow. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 06:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To-do article list

Eric's post above got me thinking (uh-oh!). What do you all think about a running list of articles needing the most prompt attention/expansion/verification. I ask because left to my own devices I tend to wander into obscure Soviet and French aircraft that get one hit per year. Not a bad thing per se but perhaps somewhat misguided if something major like S-3 Viking is a mess. The criteria are entirely subjective, of course, and anyone can add anything. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 06:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that something of that nature could be used. After all it could not hurt. I know personally if am I just looking to do general improvement of random articles articles, it is very difficult to find the ones that are in the most need. I say this is something to seriously look into. --Spot87 14:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then: (To Do table moved to the top of the page - Emt147) _→AzaToth 14:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I added S-3 Viking to the list as well as some comments. The Viking falls under an exceptionally common (as I discovered when doing infoboxes) category of pages with a lot of text but completely missing development, first flight, history, production, service, and variants. I moved the "To Do" table to the top of this page. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 17:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The actual list of articles needing specs tweaking (as opposed to overhauls) can be found at User:Ingoolemo/Aircraft specifications. Ingoolemo ^talk 20:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Embraer E-Jets

I've just been looking over a few of the pages on the Bombardier and Embraer jets. While they all seem to need a bit of attention, the E-Jets arcticle seems to need the most in the way of reformatting. I would just like oppinions on whether to split the page down into three arcticles: 170/175, 190/195, and the Lineage 1000. If anything is to be done, at least the Lineage should have it's own page (as does the BBJ from the 737.) Currently the articles under the names of "Embraer 170", "Embraer 190", etc. all redirect to Embraer E-Jets, but that article does very little in the way of explaining any one of the types of jet. I would like to hear some ideas before I start at the page for improvement. KPWM_Spotter 23:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree that the Lineage should have its own page, and I'm inclined towards two other pages called Embraer 170 and Embraer 190 that could include the respective -5 stretches. The 170 and 190 series have something like 70% commonality, while the 170 and 175 are closer to 95% (if I'm remembering the article I read correctly). The Embraer E-Jets page could serve as a disambiguation page and brief summary of the project, with specific background / customers / orders / specs for each model appearing on the 170 and 190 pages. ericg ✈ 00:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a related vein, I just moved regional jet to regional airliner - it's a little bit improved, but some rewriting and history wouldn't be inappropriate. ericg ✈ 00:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll get on the E-Jet project. The 170 Family page should be up by tonight. Also, something I noticed while researching the Lineage; there is no page for the Airbus ACJ. Should there be? --KPWM_Spotter 11:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't move the page yet. Do a request for comments first longer than 24 hours. I am adamantly against splitting the page. This is not something that is specific to the E-Jets page, but all the similar airliners (like the ERJ-145, A320, Boeing 737). If you think about what the article would contain, such as development history, these are all the same (with few exceptions such as the 737NG). This is a much broader conversation about whether or not to split all airliner variants, not just the E-Jets. Let's be consistent about this and open up the floor to a lengthier debate.--Dali-Llama 11:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The E-Jets are a different story, though - the 170/5 and 190/5 don't use the same wing, while the entire A318/19/20/21 series does. You might as well merge Cessna 172 with Cessna 182. ericg ✈ 12:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree'd. The 190/95 and the 170/75 are different sets of airliners. They use different engines, different landing gear, and a seperate wing structure, as well as serving different markets. (Large RJ vs. Small Mainliner) The E-Jets are a new type of airliner, and are designed as such, so it is hard to compare them to existing aircraft. If we call the E-Jets all the same plane, then the A330 and the A350 should be currently merged into one article under the same logic... --KPWM_Spotter 19:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree vehemently. We're not just talking about the components (the commonality of which is remarkably in favor of keeping them together). It's about marketing and development. The planes are marketed as being a part of the same family. They were developed concurrently and utilize the same assembly line. This discussion is not limited to the E-Jets, but to the 737 and A320 families as well. All these aircraft have a very high degree of commonality between them (89% is very high). And the engines are not different--they're both CF34s, only different ratings of thrust. We don't make a special page for the A320 equipped with IAE engines and another for the A321 with Rolls-Royce engines. The argument about a common wing is a fallacy--the 182 and 172 have different fuselages as well. It's about much more than a wing. As for the "different markets", it doesn't apply, since Embraer "pioneered" 70-110 passenger jets (see ruleof70to110.com). Let me ask you guys a question then: What will the 170/175 page have that the 190/195 will not repeat? The development history is the same, they were released at the same time and are a part of the same marketing project (the 70 to 110 project). It makes no sense to split these pages unless there is a lengthy argument or difference in the history between them. In the case of the 737, for example, it might be interesting to split between the 737 "Classic" (-200, -300, -400, -500) and the NG (-600, -700, -800, -900) if we can back it up with an extensive page on the different development and capabilities. The problem with the E-Jets is that they were made using the same technology (vs. the decades between the 737 generations), in the same project and at the same time. Having said that, I am not opposed to the concept of splitting pages, as long as we have content for them. I would rather have a detailed, in-depth study of a family than a stub for a bunch of aircraft. We had this exact argument for the ERJ-145 family and the decision was to merge them. If we want to figure out a uniform policy for splitting, then great--let's get to it. But as it is, I strongly vote no.--Dali-Llama 20:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I think you just convinced me there. The E-Jets page should stay as one, but with changes.

The Lineage definitly needs a seperate page, as the BBJ has. It is a different jet, for a different purpose, with different characteistics. Simply looking at the infobox which reads "airliner", the Lineage does not fit there. (On that note, the ACJ and the Legacy should have seperate articles, as they currently do not.) Within the E-Jets page, there should be some sepperation between the lines of aircraft. It is currently very confusing, with everything simply thrown together in a large mass. I will get on the cleanup of that page now, but in the meantime, I am not sure of one thing: Should the statistics for the aircraft remain all in one template? With so many different capacities and ranges and whatnot, should there be two charts, or just one with a lot of footnotes? --KPWM_Spotter 20:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just preformed major surgery on the E-Jets page...Comments on the new format anyone? (I'll get around to the Lineage page tomorrow) --KPWM_Spotter 01:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There were originally separate pages for all four models (170, 175, 190, 195). I merged them because almost all of the information was either duplicative or inconsistent. I am most definitely against a split. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 04:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decade divisions considered harmful

In the months (maybe years) that I've been reading wikipedia's aircraft articles, I've never once found the decade categorization scheme useful, and it's only come off as a pain in the butt that forces me to go up an extra level just to see any other aircraft of the same category. Most aircraft spend more than a decade in development and service, yet many countries only have a single aircraft of a particular type for a particular decade. What's the usefulness in the division of category:Swiss military trainer aircraft into four single-entry subcategories? If people want to browse, it would make more sense to browse on pages that contain more than a single aircraft. It seems like we've made our bins too small, which is why there are tons and tons of empty categories and almost as many with just one or two entries.

Our current category scheme has failed. Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Categories hasn't seen significant work in over a year and a half. I suggest updating it by eliminating the decade divisions and merging up all aircraft into type/nation categories, dividing them by era if necessary. Decades aren't eras. Cold War, WWII, WWI, Modern, those are eras. If you can only get one entry for a category, it's useless, because all the information that contains is already in the article itself. Night Gyr 12:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have a good point there. I like the idea of nation/era divisions. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 17:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've often considered doing away with the decade divisions as well; I just never bothered voicing that opinion. However, I think that the era divisions should be secondary categories rather than primary categories, because the definition of eras can be fairly arbitrary: is it logical to lump both the F-86 and the F-15 into the category of Cold War fighter aircraft because they were both designed to fight the Russkies, for example? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ingoolemo (talk • contribs) .

No harm in catting something like F-15 into both Cold war and Modern categories. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 17:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think working out an official 'era' scheme for aicraft would certainly be beneficial, I would just like to make it secondary to the other designation systems. The exact nuance of the era scheme is something we can work on later. Ingoolemo ^talk 02:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually a bit iffy on the era part as well because a lot of late WW2 aircraft (Meteor, P-80, Soviet props, etc.) served well into the Cold War and a lot of Cold War stuff will serve forever (B-52 comes to mind, technically all 4th and 5th generation jets were born during the Cold War). It'll be a lot of double classifications. Perhaps a simple "Soviet fighter aircraft" or "British bomber aircraft" would be the best way to go (yeah, huge categories but so what). - Emt147 ^Burninate! 03:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, I'm not a huge fan of diividing eras either, since they can be kinda arbitrary on the borderlines, which is why I said only do it if necessary. Night Gyr 13:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese military transport aircraft 1970-1979 is my current favorite example of the silliness that the current scheme entails. I would support merging into era-less categories as Emt147 suggested. -- Saaber 06:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could everyone read to the bottom where I wrote categories and classes and tell me what they think. This is a very efficient system and needs minor adjustment.Nations can be very tricky because many aircrafts are only assembled in one nation (parts from many countries), or it can be licensed to production elsewhere. Also I agree that era is quite vague and hard.--raraa 19:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

F-4 Phantom II feature article candidate

I re-nominated F-4 Phantom II for Feature Article status. It was considerably updated, expanded, and rewritten to address all of the concerns rasied in the peer review and previous FAC, as well as to add new information. There are only two FA aircraft articles in the whole WikiProject (B-36 and F-35) -- please take a few minutes to read the article and leave your comments/support/objections on the FAC page here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/F-4 Phantom II. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 06:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avionics

Totally off the wall. I have been contributing to another part of Wiki, but am an engineer the aircraft industry, so have a passing intrest in this section. The wealth of knowledge here is incredible, so I do not feel the need to 'help' with specific aircraft information. However, the avionics topic here on Wiki is not very good. Does Avionics fall under the remit of this group? If not, I think it would be helpful. Aircraft today are so much about the avionics (for almost all modern military aircraft it forms the bulk of the cost). In so many cases, the existence of the aircraft is only there to put some peice of electronics closer to a target. I would be happy to draw up a draft Avionics section. I think the knowledge level here is large enough for people to contribute about the various mission / tactical and aircraft systems that are out there and make this a useful section to the aircraft wiki project. Comment please? --Apacheeng lead

You are correct, the avionics information on Wikipedia and on the web in general is grossly lacking. Your contributions would be greatly appreciated! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 21:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{aircraft specifications}} has an avionics section, and if you'd like to augment it, feel free to do so. I presume, however, that you are referring to individual articles on the pieces of equipment themselves, so I also welcome your contributions there. Ingoolemo ^talk 22:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so I have done some re-work on Avionics. I have a big look at how it should be organised. People who dip into subjects like DIRCM are basically then not led to look at how this fits in with the rest of aircraft. In fact in this case they are told its a radar warning device!!! So the new Avionics section has been written to provide a spring board into the other key areas.

Please have a look... edit... generally play with!! My wiki style is not the best (I need more practice I think). Feedback would be appreciated Apacheeng lead 13:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specifications and Variants

If anyone has a few things that they just can't find anywhere else, I have access to the last forty years of Jane's All the World's Aircraft, and would be willing to look up specific numbers. -- Saaber 07:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool. Thanks for your help! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 05:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons images

FYI, you can now directly link to images from the Commons by simply using the standard image: tag. If the server doesn't find the image file locally, it will automatically check on the Commons. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 21:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum landing weight

Is this the same quantity as useful load? Obviously, if a plane's landing gear will snap if it tries to land at its theoretical MTOW, then it can't be usefully loaded past the maximum landing weight. Ingoolemo ^talk 02:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, useful load is ‘the difference between a vehicle’s gross and dry weight’. ericg ✈ 04:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is why many aircraft are fitted with systems to dump fuel -- as the recent JetBlue incident demonstrated, an emergency landing immediately after takeoff requires either dumping of the fuel or flying around for hours with everything hanging out to burn it off to reach the landing weight. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]