text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Table

=Pre-March 04 talk moved here=

Beta Table
The Current suggested table is on the above. A "beta" table with changes up for adoption is here. For immediate changes use the beta table, which could be shifted to into the current table if a consesus is reached. More long term/radical/other changes can be done on the data table sub-project disccusion page. Suggestions tend to fall into the category of format&coding standards or +/- another data row.

Short table
debate archived here

Variants
What does everyone think of this? Same size pretty much but easier to read.
 * I put a thing for having quick links to variants for aircraft that have separate pages for them (variants thing). Its entirely its own table though for easy deletion/addition. It may not be possible to get it to work properly with a page though as a separate table.

Seems unlikely that variants will routinely have enough unique content to justify links to separate articles. There are only one or two such articles in all of WP I believe. Stan 16:27, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * There will probably be more in the future (largely because some aircraft articles will start getting overly large) but I think we can cross that bridge when we're there. Right now, I can only see separate articles when there's a lot new to say about the variant - wildly different mission, for example.  That's why there's an AC-130 page as well as a C-130 page. —Morven 19:00, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I've written three variant articles myself. The RAF Tornado GR1, RAF Tornado F3 and RAF Tornado GR4 articles do cover different materials. However, if we are to have articles about each variant, it will be a long time in the future. We have to get all the articles about the base airframes written first! David Newton 19:16, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree that this isn't necessary yet, but when the time comes, this would be a nice way to standardise it. Maybe it could already be added to the Tornado pages? Unlike the table ("aerobox" anyone?) and footer, at least this element seems like a good candidate for Mediawiki --Rlandmann 23:20, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It very difficult to get it to format correctly, and for it be used somone would need to have a look at its coding. It looks fine here, but on a page its hard to have it appear just below a table and have the text start normally. The clear stye will make all the text start below the table, but without it it appears at the top and to the left of the table. I put it on one page, essentialy turning it into a footer but this misses the whole point of having the variant with the table. Greyengine5 18:20, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I changed the table on WikiProject Aircraft to specify the font in the style, rather than as a separate font tag wrapping the table, to match the way everything else was done. I hope this is not a controversial change; I think it looks better and produces exactly the same visual effect.

I just updated the table code on F4D Skyray with that table, and also made another change there, which I'd like feedback on.

Under 'Avionics' I created new categories for 'Radar', 'Fire control'. I think this is the way that the 'Avionics' section should work -- and the 'Armaments' section too -- that stats under there should be adapted to whatever this particular aircraft carries. Previously I was just doing

 * |Avionics||some radar some fire control system some ECM system

which doesn't look as good. What do you think? Is this the way it was supposed to work anyway? —Morven 02:24, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Seems to make perfect sense. Apart from radar and fire control, what other categories do we need? I guess we also should consider whether there's enough commonality of components between different aircraft to wikify them.

 * I agree it makes sense to combine the font tag into the table code itself... --Rlandmann 04:58, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Yea thats great, I could not figure out how to do that when first implementing it and am glad you figured out how to do this. ( i could not get it format properly) Greyengine5 05:57, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Section added above see heading: Symbols (abbreviations) for feet and inches ....How it would then look is shown below Bobblewik

 * I thought that the ' and " notation was universally understood by anyone using Imperial measures? And anyone not used to using Imperial measures is likely to be referring to the metric column of the table anyway... --Rlandmann 13:37, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * "The ' and ' ' abbreviations can be used for other things, namely for units of time and for minutes and seconds of latitude or longitude. Despite the obvious ability to use context (as is usually the case anyway)- its really nonstandard usage to not leave it. There are uses of it without explation but most formal resources I'v come across (at least in books anyway) do not, and for encylopedia where many people who might not know these abbrev. its probably more important" (fromearlier discussion)-Explained my stance earlier. Once again solely using ' ' ' can be found- but not usually in encyclopedias. Greyengine5

(more units talk here) Units Talk

General Talk
I was wondering if anyones come across or has accsess to a list of all aircraft ever made. It might be interesting to get a gauge of how close we are, and indeed set our sights on articles for every major type of aircraft. Certainly there are multiple times that of subtypes, but there is a finite number either way and knowing just how many are left would be quite useful. Greyengine5 19:14, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * The most comprehensive all-in list that I have access to is in the World Aircraft Information Files partwork (and its predecessor from the 80s, The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft). I have an intermediate-term goal of creating a list of all the types indexed there and placing it under List of aircraft by name or something similar, paralleling the List of people by name format. As far as majorly significant aircraft types go, we're getting closer and closer - I have another benchmark I'll contribute soon. As far as individual aircraft types go (not counting subtypes), we haven't even scratched the surface yet... --Rlandmann 02:16, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Sounds great I'll be looking forward to seeing it! Greyengine5 05:21, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I changed the margin value on the parent page's table to a more compatible one. Did I ruin anything? :) Fredrik 17:42, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Nope. More compatibility is a Good Thing :) What was going wrong? --Rlandmann 05:20, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Gecko-based browsers (and possibly others) don't add margin around floating tables and divs by default. It's a good habit to always use a margin of 1em. There's a solution for divs now, just give them the attribute class="floatright". You can't do that with tables yet, unfortunately. I've made a feature request, but got no response, so I'll probably try again. Fredrik 14:05, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the table, since we are using the style attribute, it's occurred to me that perhaps it would be useful to define styles in the wikipedia style sheet for tables that go on the left top of the page (tables for aircraft, and for other WikiProjects would follow the same principles. I was thinking of something like this:

fullwidth tables would be useful for big tables inside the body of the page.

I don't know where leftflow tables would be useful, but they might be, somewhere.

rightflow tables would be useful for the tables that go at the top right of pages, both in descriptions of aircraft, and in many other places.

I've just had a go at fixing the Dassault Rafale article. It had far too many large pictures and bad formatting. It still needs major work in the copyediting departments and needs going through to make it properly NPOV. David Newton 20:13, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * It reads like a cut'n'paste from another source, too. Hopefully a PD one. —Morven 21:03, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I've gone round and fixed the image format, tweaked the data table, and worked on the first paragraph. Boy, does it need work. —Morven 21:27, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The table, and the article titles
My vision is find, and I find the table template fairly readable. But the version presented under Convair B-36 is far superior in terms of readability, and would certainly be preferred by vision-impaired people. The table ought to use the standard Wikipedia font, like the taxoboxes for articles on animals.

The other issue of concern to me is the titles of the articles. I don't claim to be an expert in the subject, but I feel that articles like XB-70 Valkyrie ought to be B-70 Valkyrie or even B-70. I know that in the case of XB- and YB-articles the planes never got past the XB/YB stage. But you don't see separate articles for XB-, YB-, and B-stages of planes such as the B-17 Flying Fortress -- information on the XB-17 and YB-17 are given under a single B-17 article. It shouldn't be too difficult to note under the B-70 article that it didn't make it past the XB-stage. Furthermore, the Northrop B-35 didn't go past the YB-stage, but it's still listed as a B- aircraft.

The practise of putting the mane after an aircraft (XB-70 Valkyrie versus XB-70) I can understand, but putting it's maker before if their is no usual name Convair B-36 is a rather dubious practise. Perhaps a B-36 as a redirect is acceptable, but in my opinion, B-36 and B-70 should be the main articles, not Convair B-36 and XB-70 Valkyrie. --Ingoolemo 19:15, 2004 Jul 13 (UTC)

 * The problem arose because the "small print" version of the table was created under an older Wikipedia "skin" where the scaled-down text was not so much of a problem. I'm going to change all the templates to remove the 72% scale tag, and have been (irregularly) weeding it out of articles as I come across them...

 * The principle of "least surprise" has been the dominant force in the evolution of the naming conventions, hence "XB-70". For US military aircraft, this generally means including the X- or Y- prefix, depending on just how far along the development path the aircraft got. The B-35 was a mistake (by me) and should conventionally be placed under YB-35.

 * "B-35" and "B-70" aren't very descriptive, and I agree with the wisdom of slightly more descriptive titles. Personally, I'd like to go with "North American XB-70 Valkyrie", but that's not the convention that's been agreed on, and I can appreciate the difficulties that that approach can create... Anyway, "Convair B-36" is a lot nicer than "B-36 (bomber)"! --Rlandmann 04:54, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Should we also remove the font-family specifiers? I've been unhappy with specifying a different font from the beginning, but didn't find it important enough to argue about.  Now that the default skin uses a sans-serif font, the font specifier is effectively useless.

 * Part of the issue about names is that redirects are (irrationally, in my view) considered second-class citizens, existing only to increase the chances of accidental linking, but which should be 'snapped' to point directly to the target article whenever possible. Thus there is a great pressure to place articles at the most commonly linked-to name, rather than a 'correct' name.  —Morven 07:14, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes - I agree that the font-specifiers should go too. Does anyone know whether the style section of the table can be stored in a Template? If so, it would have the benefit of making all tables across the project changeable simultaneously, as well as looking a lot neater for users making their first edits... Worth experimenting with.

 * While we're here - the footers are also looking awful in the new skin. Some of their functionality has been replaced by Categories, but their main strength is still in condensing the "see also" section as well as providing navigation back and forth through the series. Any ideas from anyone how to tidy these tables up? --Rlandmann 22:19, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * The point isn't to look pretty, but it certainly is distracting when stuff in an encyclpædia is hideous. They don't really need tidying up that much, but one thing should happen: we should have 'related series' line to include the nearest four or five, and in the case of planes like the XB-39 be included on the page for the B-29 too, so that users can easily navigate back from the B-39 point.--Ingoolemo 03:58, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)

 * Just clarifying - what do you mean by "related series"? Is this different from the "Designation series" line?

 * When an aircraft belongs to several designation series, some of us have been including multiple lines on the table, which I think works well (see F-4 Phantom II for example).

 * On the other hand, when an aircraft occupies several designations in the same series, things can get messy. Most of us have been creating an extended version of the "series" line stretching backwards past the first designation and forwards past the last one - but this can sometimes create a very large line (see Miles Master). In many cases, I think that the best solution will be to create a separate (stubbish) article for the minor designation (like the XB-39), outlining its differences from the type covered in the main article, and referring the reader there. --Rlandmann 06:19, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Putting table style info in a template used to work but was broken in the MediaWiki upgrade. The WikiProject Albums used the Template:AlbumboxStart to define a standard infobox table style. With the upgrade, the template was ignored so everyone now uses which is no help if you want to change the style of all tables (though it does mean you don't have to paste/edit lengthy style stuff when starting a infobox). Eg., for the Genesis Live album, the broken albumbox can be seen in this edit. Geoff/Gsl 01:03, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * When I was trying to translate the table into Japanese, I got some questions.
 * Maybe I'm too serious but why not use the web safe color for background such as "#99ccff" insead of current "#87CEEB"? (I'm not sure if we can use external style sheets that will be better solution...)
 * I guess the reason why using the units "miles" and "mph" is that they are more familiar with the non-aviation-related people in the US (and UK, etc) than "nautical miles" and "knot", isn't it? (Anyway I'm gonna use "nm" and "kt" in the Japanese version because we aren't familiar with both of them)
 * So I should use "TAS", right?
 * Isn't there any place for "Mach number"?
 * If you've already discussed these points, I'm sorry to disturb but please let me know where to read.--Marsian 09:15, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)

 * The contributor who selected the table colour originally went for "color:skyblue" but discovered that not all browsers supported that. He then selected the hex equivalent.
 * Yes
 * Yes. In most of the (non-specialist) references that form the basis of most of our articles, this is generally the only figure quoted anyway (and probably only approximately at best)
 * There should be - this needs to be incorporated into the tables, most logically as a row spanning both columns (as has been done by various contributors in a number of articles already, though I can't think of an example off the top of my head). I'm going to assume this is a non-controversial update and will go and do it now...
 * Good luck with the translation! :) --Rlandmann 13:22, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks a lot! I'm glad to know that I didn't miss the points... and that my English worked. :) --Marsian 14:35, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)

Firstly, some entries use the term 'mile' to mean 'nautical mile'. If there is not a policy on this, then I call for one. Unfortunately both versions of 'mile' are used in maritime and aerospace domains, so it is impossible to use context to resolve the ambiguity. Google will convert 'miles' to km at a rate of 1.609 and 'nautical miles' at a rate of 1.852. If you notice that the word 'mile' is being used when 'nautical mile' is intended, please correct it.

Secondly, I am not too keen on the use of 'nm' to mean nautical mile because it conflicts with the metric unit nm. If you have the space, I would prefer nautical mile to be written in full. It is not such a big deal though because of the huge difference in size.

Thirdly, I think that there is little benefit in presenting values that are merely the division or multiplication of two other values in the table. The values appear to be esoteric, a reader that is sufficiently interested can divide one value by another. It just makes the table more complicated. In many cases, the entries have not been completed anyway. Could we drop them from the standard table? Bobblewik 15:17, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Wow, I've forgotten nano meter. Thanks.  Then, how about using "NM" for Nautical Mile when less space is needed?  Or do you feel this unnatural? (in Japanese, there's another way to use 海里 or カイリ both mean nautical mile).
 * I read some discussion about weight. In fact, in Japanese Wiki we are discussing which should be used: kgf for weight, N for weight, or kg for mass...
 * Bobblewik's opinion about deleting T/W sound logical. In addition, I guess there's another problem.  Which weight should be used to calculate?  Good(bad?) example is F-15E. --Marsian 16:31, 2004 Jul 17 (UTC)

 * Earlier discussions about Thrust:weight, Power:mass, and Wing loading suggested using "loaded" weights for these values. I've also never liked these entries in the table - I think they're too esoteric for a non-specialist readership - a fact that I think is borne out by Bobblewik's observation that only truly dedicated (fanatical?) contributors ever bother filling this information in. Anyone else in favour of dropping them? --Rlandmann 03:49, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I think thrust-to-weight and wing loading are important in giving an idea of how manouvrable an aircraft is. (Like 0-to-60 and top speed give an idea of how fast a car is). I don't find them esoteric, and in any case, so what if they are? Wikipedia should be as detailed as people interested in the information in question want it to be, which means some topics will be covered in esoteric detail -- which is a good thing. -- Cabalamat 23:07, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't think those values should be written in the table. But I agree with you on "Wikipedia should be as detailed as...".  Now I'm considering it might be better to show some detailed information, separately from the current table.  Such as: take-off and landing distances, max L/D, wing aspect ratio, tapor ratio, swept angle, incidence angle, dihedral angle, airfoils, wheel track, wheel base, quantity of fuel, etc.  Too esoteric?  That's why I guess these should be separated.  But obviously they work in some situations.  For example, when you want to know whether an F-16C could land on the small airfield near your home... --Marsian 23:40, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)

 * I guess it's also important to remember that what we're trying to write here is an encyclopedia, not necessarily "the last word on the F-16 on the internet". I guess one of the guiding questions should always be - what's the depth of coverage on this topic that we could expect to find in an off-the-shelf encyclopedia of aircraft? The other problem, as I see it, is that of uniformity ("least surprise") - the basic data table/"aerobox" should be a set of information that should be available and applicable for practically every machine that we cover here. More detailed information will generally only be available for the very best-known types. Finally, the aerobox is already so big that it overwhelms all but the most detailed articles - I for one am not keen to see it grow further.

 * So yes, I think that anything more detailed than what we've got in there now should be included elsewhere, perhaps at the bottom of the article. The human spaceflight articles do something like this already. --Rlandmann 00:02, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Most entries use mile to mean the "international mile", and I'd suggest that we use this in place of nautical miles wherever possible. Once again, it comes down to a question of what's going to be most familiar and significant to a non-specialist reader. Anyone who cares about nautical mile values is likely to be able to convert these from "international miles" if they are so interested --Rlandmann 03:49, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I've never heard of the "international mile". Is it the same as a British mile (approx 1.609 km)? -- Cabalamat 23:07, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes. --Rlandmann 00:02, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Table Format
Ugh, the table is an eyesore. Not that I have any better idea. Is there any plan to replace it? -N328KF 20:21, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)

 * We're always open to suggestions! What do you find displeasing about it in its current form? --Rlandmann 22:12, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Personally I'd be happy if we removed tables altogether from the aircraft articles and went back to using unnumbered lists for the characteristics. But perhaps that's just me. -- Cabalamat 23:07, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Mainly the color and font combos. Also, the fact that it doesn't seem to render consistently across browsers and platforms. -N328KF 04:03, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

 * I agree entirely... it's a bit funky at narrow page widths in Mozilla (it overlaps the bottom tables sometimes), and the colors don't change to match a user's selected wikipedia theme. I've actually been creating new entries (like Hawker Sea Fury and Aero L-39 to show an example) with the straight-line (history -> specs -> misc info) format that I saw in an older entry. It makes more sense to follow the style of aviation publications like Jane's, both in terms of consistency and readability. I know that I for one don't check out specs as I read history, I want one or the other at a time.eric 05:09, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

 * One other thing -- it makes it difficult to place a second image in articles. It adds an awkward look. See Multimission Maritime Aircraft now that I have added a table--both images, IMHO, have a role in the article, and now it looks sort of awkward until I decide what to do with it. -N328KF 11:34, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

 * Though not necessarily so - take a look at Short Sunderland for an excellent counter-example. A question - how do other Wikipedia infoboxes look to you? --Rlandmann 12:39, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * The Sunderland example is good, but it just goes to show that the table itself is actually quite empty and fills an awful lot of space. Also, at 800x600 (can't go assuming users have wide screens!) the infobox fills half the viewable page.

 * The other infoboxes look equally slapdash to my eyes, though they certainly serve their function in some cases. I just think that in terms of information presented they don't work as well as they should. Why not standardize a table of contents with a link to specs at the top? That way people looking for specs can hop right to them if they're at the end, and the page flow will be more consistent. -eric 15:07, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

 * Could you make an example of what you had in mind? Are you talking about just moving the current table to a section below the article, or breaking it up, and, for example, leaving the picture at the top and and regular table below? ( or removing the data from the table all together?). What Im asking for is a actual page for comparison, to understand the specifics of the design changes your talking about. Greyengine5 15:34, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

 * I previously mentioned my Hawker Sea Fury and Aero L-39 entries as examples of what I think makes sense. The table doesn't really work effectively in terms of structuring data - a list does that better, I think - and the font size is often too small for practical reading. (Yes, my eyes are fine, but the 12" screen hurts.)
 * So, I think the content of the tables should remain, but be worked into a different, more readable (and editable, in most cases) format. Even if it's not a major deal, the advantages of the wiki code rapidly go south on us when you've got huge chunks of table at the top of every entry. eric 15:50, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

 * Ah ok thanks (missed the earlier links). I did mean more of a conversion of a existing tabled page but that example is ok.
 * The current table is, of course, a compromise between a huge technical spec list, and a smaller summarized list like you have in the article.
 * One solution to the tension between these objectives might be to move the current table to its own 'technical spec sub-page' and allow it to expand, while retaining a more concise version on the main page.
 * I could see a major change in standard like this being acceptable, as it would offer something to those that want to add stuff to the table and those that want to remove stuff.
 * However, given the huge amount of work involved in changing over, I don't see any big change happening unless other members were for it and the new design was arrived at as part of a general standards overhaul. Greyengine5 17:08, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

Regardless of what happens, I think we could eliminate the font size and type specifier in all aircraft tables. The more default settings there are, the more browser independent (including text-only and PDA compatible) it may be. People seem to be for that, and nobody seems to be against it.

As far as table-at-the-side versus section-at-the-bottom is concerned, I don't mind either way. I have often thought that blank table entries are just clutter or wasted space. Since web pages in general and Wikipedia specifically are always being modified, I do not particularly see a lot of benefit in things that look like 'under construction' place holders or links waiting for a page. I do like the column alignment of values in the table version though, so perhaps some alignment might be useful if we were to go to the section-at-the-bottom style. Bobblewik 18:27, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I've already taken the font size and specifier out of the templates, since yes, that's what people seemed to be saying.

 * I also like values to be in columns - I find them much easier to read that way. I have no particular preference about the side-vs-bottom placement of this data, though. I'm quite ignorant of cross-browser and cross-platform issues here, and will happily defer to those who know more.

 * I (mildly) disagree about the value of empty entries though - I like the "known unknowns" to be (quietly) stated. Which is another reason why I think we shouldn't go into too much detail with a standard table, for which we won't find the information for many types. --Rlandmann 21:37, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think its only ok to leave a empty tabe if its at least partially filled in, otherwise it just adds clutter to the page. Having the data in a table does make it easier to read, but if were going to keep it where it is now I think theres some issues - especially with the font and size values removed.

It makes the table even worse in terms of article formatting, especially for low resolution screens. It also creates even more destandardized tables, but since it corrects the readabilty problem its justifiable.

As far as getting rid of the table and moving all the data out- thats probably unwanted and not the best idea for readabilty either (given the volume of data). One alternative might be to 'split' the current table and leave a much smaller 'upper' with a picture and limited info on top, and the 'full spec' table to down below the article.

This would minimize the work in converting a page, solve some of the article formatting issues, and allow the full spec table more page width. By keeping the smaller picture and info on top, the information most people are interested in still easily availble (such as year and type). What do people think of something like this? Greyengine5 15:40, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)

I have just noticed that a similar question about the benefits of a table appeared on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. See Album box necessity? Bobblewik 18:52, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia Tables
Why oh why do tables on Wikipedia, other than tables of contents, still have such hideous appearances? Why have they not been delightfully styled up like all other page elements? mnemonic 03:54, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately, the software that powers the wiki still needs tables to be styled individually. It seems that it was possible at one stage for table styles to be set with a template, but this feature is now broken and/or no longer supported.

 * As you can see above, we're currently discussing the appearance of the WP:Aircraft table, and the desirability of having a table at all, as opposed to a specifications section. Please tell us what you think! --Rlandmann 04:25, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the Standard Footer
I personally think that the standard footer is chunky, ugly, and a bit too narrow. Regardless, I think that the table format for it is somewhat unnecessary, and I've whipped up a non-tables version with the same sort of content. The added benefit of using the =-stle headers is that the 'Related content' section will now list in a TOC, if it appears.

Of course this doesn't make sense to immediately go back and switch everything over, but a gradual process towards simplifying the footer in new and existing pages makes sense to me. If this catches on, then perhaps reformatting or splitting off the stats table would make sense as well - I like the idea of using a sub-page for a detailed statistics section. -eric 19:33, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Messerschmitt Me 163 proposed footer revision:

Related content
Related Development: DFS 39 - DFS 194 - Me 263 - Mitsubishi J8M - MiG I-270

Comparable Aircraft: Berezniak-Isaev BI-1 - Bachem Ba 349

Designation Sequence: Bf 161 - Bf 162 - He 162 - Me 163 - Me 164 - FK 166 - Fi 166

 * Just a note of support for this - seems to look a lot better in WP's new skin, and has the bonus that it will never need to be updated if and when the skin changes again. If we're going to make this change, I think we should also incorporate fixes for a couple of the other issues that arose from the original footer - namely, changing "Similar aircraft" to "Comparable aircraft" and "Designation series" to "Designation sequence". Finally, Wikipedia's new categories system has pretty much made "Related lists" superfluous, so I suggest that we drop this line altogether.

 * He didn't mention is, but you can see an example of eric's new approach "in action" at XP-55 Ascender --Rlandmann 23:49, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Sample modified accordingly. What, exactly, is considered 'related development'? Derivatives, variants, larger versions, similar aircraft by the same maker? Would the 737 and 727 be considered related developments of the 707? How about the Me209 and the Me109? -eric 01:44, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

 * Related development is for derivatives. In your examples above, I wouldn't be including the 727 or 737 as developments of the 707. I would, however include the 707, the C-135 and the original Dash 80 as related developments. Bf 109 "related developments" could include the Bf 108, Me 209 (both aircraft to carry this name), Me 309, Me 409, Me 509, Me 609, Avia S-99, Avia S-199, Hispano Ha 1109, and Hispano Ha 1112! Not "hard and fast", but intended to provide an idea of design lineage....

 * In a "related" vein, when the footer was first being rolled out, we had practically no variant-specific articles. This has now changed, and there are quite a few starting to show up - the Panavia Tornado springs to mind. A Variants line in the footer might become a good idea.

 * Finally, just raising the idea that if we're contemplating moving the specifications and related content out of tables and into plain text, we should also think about the "units that used this aircraft" material. This is a real mess when it's been attempted in plain text - the table in the Blenheim article is the nicest way to handle this information that I've seen so far. But is there a neat and concise way to do it with text? --Rlandmann 02:06, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I think I like that way better. The table may need some adjustment, but I do like the idea of a table that would have nation/service/air wing/etc breakdowns. -N328KF 14:14, 2004 Jul 24 (UTC)

 * It might be good to move the units that used this aircraft to its own subpage as well using the /Units for the article. In some cases the units section is longer then the article itself. Greyengine5 14:32, 2004 Jul 24 (UTC)

 * I very much like the idea of sub-pages for related but secondary information. Makes a lot of sense considering the rather limited web format we're working within. -eric 17:19, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * update: as it's easier to see how things work in action rather than just talking about them, I've tried the sub-page system with the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 article. The detailed specifications are on the page 'Focke-Wulf Fw 190/Specifications', and there is a link to them in the related content section. -eric 05:00, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

 * Note, however, that using sub-pages to house content in the main Wikipedia namespace is not uncontentious - see Subpages and links from there.

 * For the sake of comparison, I've changed the CASA C-101 article to shift all the information that's currently in the standard table into a text-based specifications section. While I'm sure that this could be compacted down a bit (someone want to have a stab at this?) it seems to me that a table like the one we're currently using may actually turn out to be the most concise way to present this data... --Rlandmann 09:02, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I removed one line by eliminating thrust/weight. As I mentioned before it is esoteric and if anyone wants to know it, they can do the division of thrust and weight for themselves. Of course, one line has not made much difference. Bobblewik 13:31, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * It looks like it's still a table to me. Regarding subpages, is that the opinion of a vocal minority or a widely agreed-upon view? It seems to me that their points for and against are taken from a rather different sort of article; how many entries in the wp have huge chunks of pure data without proper sentence structure etc?

 * I do agree that a table makes more sense for portraying tabular data, but in the current style and form it's really inefficient and sort of ugly, so if we can clean it up then it would still probably suffice. The question still remains, though - do most readers care about all the specifics? I'm a pilot and I could care less what the wing area or wing loading is, and ferry range seems particularly excessive. Making the main article as informative as possible means occasionally removing data that, while worth including somewhere, doesn't make sense in the main article.-eric 16:05, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure of the "politics of the subpage" - the talk page for the page I referenced before or the Village Pump might be the best places to ask about that. I believe that it's generally discouraged though.

 * In one sense, what we're discussing here is really just trading off horizontal space for vertical space. Can anyone come up with a more efficient design for the table in its present location on the page?

 * As for the content of the table - this remains contentious. Some contributors would like to include more data, some less. The current table is the product of a series of compromises.

 * Part of the problem is that we don't know exactly who our readers are, or will be in the future. Our contributors to the aircraft articles have included a variety of backgrounds, including pilots, engineers, historians, and aviation and military enthusiasts, and many many others I'm sure. Our readership is probably at least as diverse. The rule of thumb is always that we're writing an encyclopedia.

 * There are plenty of different "models" out there for what kind of encyclopedia Wikipedia is or should be, but the one that I've found most persuasive is the one that conceptualises Wikipedia as a set of overlapping encyclopediaS. Thus, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of computing stacked on top of an encyclopedia of astronomy stacked on top of an encyclopedia of British television stacked on top of an encyclopedia of aircraft - and all interlinked!.

 * Comparing our articles to those in general print reference works on aircraft, our data tables seem to me to be "about right". Some printed sources include a little more or a little less, but I don't think that we're outrageously over the top with what we're currently including in the main body of articles. --Rlandmann 23:01, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Whoops, sorry, that's my fault. I stumbled on the C-101 article and changed it to a table before I'd read this page. I'm reverting it back now, so if you decide you do prefer the tabular format, you can just revert back to my table edit. Btw, I also added a nice pic of the C-101.
 * On the subpages issue, I suppose one advantage it would have it so make the basic info visible to all, with the more detailed stuff a click away for those who want to see it.
 * Impi 16:32, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I used the Handley Page Hastings article to show what the 'split' format design might look like that I mentioned in the other section. Just to re-hash, the table would go where RL had the text, but it would be left in table form. The picture and some basic data would remain at the top. In this case I kept the top section, but the split could happen anywhere.

The idea is to have the most critical data up top, and then the big 'full spec' table below. People who want to include derived quantities like t/w could do so more justifiably in the 'full spec'table. regular users wouldn't have to wade through a lot of extra techinical data if they didn't want to.

With the main spec table down below it doesn't have the same width restrictions either so it doesn't have to take up so much vertical space in some cases. In this case I just split the table, but the uppers information could be changed summarize some other imporant information in place of whats there.

Greyengine5 16:54, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)

 * I think the Handley Page Hastings format is a good idea. A photo is captured in a nice frame with basic info, while a full-width data table could cover a few variants in separate columns. Pibwl 15:08, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Table


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Strategy

As we move towards Wikipedia 1.0 at the end of 2004, it may be worthwhile to have a list of important aircraft that should have reasonable coverage by then. The following lists are arbitrary ones, taken from the types covered by the partwork World Aircraft Information Files. I suggest they're as good as any other arbitrary list.

They've probably missed some of your favourite types (they've missed some of mine too), but rather than extend these lists ad infinitum, I'm proposing we treat them as fixed and see how much of them we can cover (while still adding other machines we're personally obsessed with, of course!) For what it's worth, pre-World War II types seem under-represented, and British types seem over-represented. X-planes, prototypes, and projects aren't listed at all.

First glances indicate that we've got a pretty good breadth of types here already, which is very encouraging... and hopefully also shows up some of the glaring omissions that still exist.

 * WikiProject Aircraft/checklist (military)
 * WikiProject Aircraft/checklist (civil)

--Rlandmann 12:23, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Good idea- perhaps it can be "Aircraft 1.0" for the project. Another Benchmark from US Air Force Fact File [here]
 * WikiProject Aircraft/checklist (US Air Force Modern 1))

Ideas on aircraft articles for Wiki 1.0
 * WikiProject Aircraft/Aircraft for Wiki 1

Alpha listing of all the pages that intially got the airlistbox

 * WikiProject Aircraft/benchmark (initialairbox)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Strategy


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/General

Wikiproject Sample Page
No such page exists for aircraft as standards are still in flux. Also, since the best way to illustrate a given aircraft varies, such a page may never be completed. This is in part to due often confused nature of aircraft models and long developments, the best format for a given group of related planes varies. Currently a standard table for a single model and type of an aircraft is the limit of standardization. Greyengine5 04:26, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to nominate the Messerschmitt Me 163 page. It has a very complete data table, covers the Development, Operational history, and Variants of the aircraft very clearly and very well.

The sample for any Wikiproject is never going to hold true for every article that project covers, but I don't think that the layout of aircraft articles gets much better than this one (even if the text probably needs a copyedit to even it out a little). It also has the advantage of being a relatively straightforward type to document, unlike planes with a longer, more complicated history such as the Supermarine Spitfire (another well-laid out page, but more complex than the Me 163]] --Rlandmann 23:43, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the Me-163 article is well written. However, I think that, at least for military aircraft, we need to add more data at the bottom of the page. As you might have seen, at the bottom of some of the articles that I have written, I have added a list of the units that used the aircraft where known.

Above the list of units using the aircraft, I would also say that we need a list of the variants. With aircraft with very few variants like the Me-163, it is possible to have a small amount of text about each variant on the main page. However, with aircraft like the Spitfire, Canberra or Mosquito, with upwards 15 variants, I would say that cannot reasonably be done. Therefore just having a list of variants, perhaps with a small amount of text after the name of the variant listing what made it different from the other variants.

So, from the top of the article, we first need the data table, ideally fully filled in, with a picture. The table may well need additions or subtractions from the standard version to accommodate differences. For example, with jet aircraft, we need to refer to an engine's thrust rather than its power. With military aircraft, we may well need more weapons cells, to cover things like guns, bombs, torpedoes and mines. After the table, we obviously need a general introduction to the aircraft, covering in general terms its role, time period and level of success.

The Me-163 article has a portion on design next, which would be nice to have for most aircraft. Then a bit more detail on the operational use of the aircraft would probably be a good idea. Finally, lists of variants and units using the aircraft (for military aircraft, perhaps a list of companies using them for airliners) should probably be in place. David Newton 17:41, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Since Wiki is not paper I don't see why we shouldn't have detailed info on every version of Spitfire, say. However, they can be on separate pages, if having it in the main article would make things too long.  Either a page entitled something like Spitfire variants or one per version if we have enough. —Morven 21:07, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Agreed that the data table needs to be tweaked for different aircraft, but this will always be the case anyway. Agreed also that particularly prolific types will eventually need to be broken down into subpages. I think we might have to think through the best way to present unit data (for airliners, this might be links to airlines). For rarer types, this can comfortable done on the page itself, but for more widely-used types, the unit list will quickly overwhelm the article (see the A-4 Skyhawk page for an example). Past some point, this list might also be better on a separate page just to avoid the clutter --Rlandmann 16:15, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

So, returning to the original question - can anyone think of a better "sample page" to show off as an example of the Wikiproject? --Rlandmann 16:17, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think its a good choice and has my vote. Variants can use that same format anyway for there own pages, oddball aircraft will always require non-standard formats, and even more techincal in-depth specifications can be put on a different page. So I don't see a problem there. The only changes I'd like to see are the use of a different color backround since some other online pedia's use that same color- but thats a minor issue. Also as things advance, improvents can be incorporated into the sample page anyway should the need arise.

Greyengine5 00:56, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Units Using {Aircraft}
Is there a good way to standardize this information? Look at F-4 Phantom II to see what I'm talking about. As it stands right now, it's a very large, ugly list (with lots of holes). Are there any suggestions for the best way to standardize this information and make it prettier (with each nation's Air Force roundel and what not)? Anybody? Bueller? If no one has any thoughts, I'll work on a mock-up idea. (I may do this anyway.) RadicalBender 20:59, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I'd be interested in your ideas for presenting this. Right now we don't even have articles for pretty much any air force unit worldwide ... —Morven 23:42, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I question the need to have long lists of units on the main page itself - I suggest that List of units which have operated the F-4 Phantom II (or some less wordy alternative!) would be better. But either on the main page or a sub-page, some sort of standard way of presenting this data would be nice. --Rlandmann 05:23, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Somewhere in the last week or two of categorising, I came across one or two entries that presented the list of units in a neat table. I can't for the life of me remember what articles they were, though! I have a feeling that they were British aircraft of around the time of the Second World War... Does anyone have any idea of what I'm talking about? I thought that this layout would make an excellent standard to adopt for this info. --Rlandmann 08:03, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * OK - answered my own question - it's in Bristol Blenheim. Great work! Anyone have any problem with this bring rolled out more widely? --Rlandmann 08:08, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

List of years
Is there any interest or merit in doing a "year in aviation" (or "year in aerospace") series, like has been done for list of years in science, list of years in film, and so on? Geoff 22:46, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * As I recall, someone began one. There are, I believe, years through most of the 1980s defined. —Morven 23:41, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * So there is. Silly me.  Geoff 23:51, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * However, feel free to get this going again! —Morven 01:14, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Units order
I dont care which set of units come first, but I oppose having two standards. As I per any major change like this it must at least go through some sort of review eitehr way. Greyengine5 23:43, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * It's not a change - it's been the reality of the data tables for a while. The templates are just a tool to help implement the already existing standard. I originally suggested this as "best practice" back in late February, and I and others have implemented both "imperial first" and "metric first" tables consistently ever since.

 * You yourself have edited the project page dozens of times over those six weeks and have never taken exception to this until now.

 * Of course, if others here feel that we should go back to a single metric-first or imperial-first table, then by all means we should. For now, however, this accurately reflects what's going on "in the field".

 * To me, when listing the specifications of an aircraft, it makes sense to express them in the units that the machine was designed in. But it's not a big deal.

 * Other opinions? --Rlandmann 03:20, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Its because I dont think either row is "better", the proper way could just as easily be reveresed. That and this 'standard' has not been uniformly done. Greyengine5 15:18, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Rlandmann. It should probably list first the units the machine was designed in. This is similar to whether or not articles should use "humor" or "humour." The general consensus is for English articles to use the English spelling and not otherwise. I think we should use the same here. R ADICAL B ENDER ★  16:38, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Very well then- it will be perpetuated. The issue here was thats its not worth having two different orders when the number listed first aren't in better spot then then second. I would be just as happy if metric was listed first for all of the tables. (or all the other way) Greyengine5 17:55, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It would be nice to be clear about which units provide the raw data. But even if we know the raw data, I don't think we will really be able to indicate this clearly. When we use parentheses, the reader can sometimes think that the author puts the raw data outside the parentheses. Although it is not a reliable indication. I often see parentheses used merely to contain the authors non-preferred units.

Our decision to divide the columns into metric and non-metric means that we cannot indicate the raw data simply by putting one column before the other. This is because specifications are rarely 100% metric or 100% non-metric. In addition, wikipedia authors (including myself) are sometimes misinformed about the raw data.

It is an interesting question, but I don't have an easy answer. We might wish to have a default suggestion (my preference is metric first too, although there are other strategies) but I am fairly happy to leave it undefined as we do with spelling. Bobblewik 18:32, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Indeed, a good many aircraft have some components designed or specified in more than one system of measurement. However, I prefer the de facto standard of using Imperial/US measurements first for those aircraft built in the USA and Britain, since that is what people expect and what will be found in official publications about them.  Wikipedia's role is not to convert the United States to the metric system. —Morven 18:56, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I would not have considered having a standard division by nation. It might have had some relevance for aircraft half a century ago (although a lot of pages refer to old designs), but it is not a relevant distinction today. You might argue that metric goes second for for British aircraft up to 19xx and goes first after that date, but it all gets a bit complicated.

 * Many aircraft that are considered as American are very metric because of a pro-metric stance of the manufacturer (the US military often specifies metric, and manufacturers use metric to make foreign sales easier). Some supposedly American aircraft are direct purchases from 'metric countries' (e.g. HH-65 Dolphin), or are copies (e.g. the US T6A Texan is a copy of the Swiss Pilatus PC9).

 * Then there is the issue of collaborative projects which almost certainly use metric by default. That is not so common for the US, but it is very common with the UK.

 * The use of metric in British aircraft factories is now more similar to European usage than to USA usage. If you think of aircraft such as the Tornado, Jaguar, Puma, Gazelle, Eurofighter, Merlin, Airbus etc, I would have thought that a UK table would have the same order as their German and French counterparts.

 * I would also suggest that British people of today are so exposed to metric units, particularly for official/military/engineering applications, that I can't support a hypothesis that metric priority would be considered odd in Britain.

 * There may well be an assumption in the minds of some people that the distinction between metric and non-metric can be mapped onto the distinction between USA/UK and the rest of the world. However, in reality the correlation is so poor as to be futile and has been for decades. Even if you said it was a distinction between US aircraft and non-US aircraft then I would not agree, but might be less adamant about it.

 * Anyway, although I think nationality is not a good basis for choice of column order, I don't really care much. So I will accept the choice of others. Bobblewik 14:36, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Just so that you know, you're wrong about the UK and metric units. I routinely use imperial units in everyday life, and I'm 24 and British. I know plenty of other people who do as well. In scientific work metric units are the standard for many, but not all. For example, the electron volt is not the SI unit of energy, and yet it is commonly used, the same with the Bohr radius as a unit of length. I consider putting a metric version of the British units odd. David Newton 04:07, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

--

In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft I removed the section stating that thrust to weight is unitless but it was reverted. My reason for removing it is that it is not unitless anymore than power to weight is. Thrust/weight is actually acceleration which can be easily demonstrated by arithmetic (F=ma), or by practical demonstration (try loading your car with 4 fat people and note the effect on acceleration). The identical unit names (pound force and pound mass ) misleads people to think that they are the same.

UtherSRG reverted the page (see history of the page), stating ''BW you are incorrect. in F=ma, m is mass, not weight'' I don't want to get in an edit war, or a debate about the ambiguity of the word 'weight' and the units kg or lb (I have seen plenty of these on the internet and they are tedious in the same way that I have no interest in arguing about the ambiguity of the word 'hot' for high temperature and large amount of heat). I don't care if an aircraft is said to be: thrust: y pounds weight: x pounds thrust to weight: z (units left off) but it won't work in metric units. The suggestion that metric authors should use kgf is not acceptable because the metric unit for force is the newton. thrust: x kN weight: y kg thrust to weight: z kN/kg(units shown)

The section is incorrect and I think it cannot be left in the present form. It certainly cannot reject the usage of kN/kg by metric countries. Are there any better suggestions than to simply delete the section again? Bobblewik 15:26, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Bobblewik, User:UtherSRG was right that you were incorrect. Thrust-to-weight is unitless. This is because thrust and weight are both forces. Specifically, the weight of an object is the force of gravity on it.

 * You also say "The suggestion that metric authors should use kgf is not acceptable because the metric unit for force is the newton.". This is misleading, because you seem to have confused metric units (those based on the meter) with SI units - they aren't the same thing, for example the second is an SI unit but not as metric unit, and the erg is a metric unit but not an SI unit. The newton is the SI unit of force, and a metric unit of force. The kilogram force (kgf) isn't an SI unit of force, but it is a metric unit of force. It is also an established unit for denoting the thrust of aero engines, and as such is used by reference books on aircraft. -- Cabalamat 17:37, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * "Weight will be kg" doesn't sit right with me. Thrust-to-weight is dimensionless regardless of which side of the ocean you live on.  In fact if it were up to me, I would either rename the "Weights" table section "Mass," or specify weights in "lbf" or "N", but this would ruffle a lot of feathers. Fleminra 21:48, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Understandable trumps pedanticism. This means that weights will be specified in kg.  Thrust to weight will be unitless.  We have been using kN for thrusts, but I would not be opposed to using kgf (and annotating it as plain 'kg', too) since this is what is found in most reference works.  And yes, we all know that all of this is pedantically incorrect, but it is comprehensible and we all really do also understand what is MEANT. —Morven 03:41, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Someone knowledgeable about MiG history might want to check contributions of a newbie. He is "moving" articles about MiGs from "Mikoyan-Gurevich" to "Mikoyan" without any explanation and by copy-pasting them. Nikola 07:19, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mailing list anybody?
Am I the only one who finds it difficult to navigate the discussions here? What do people think of setting up an email list for the project (open to all), with discussions archived here on a regular basis? --Rlandmann 00:02, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, a web-board? --Rlandmann 08:00, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm new, but that makes a heck of a lot more sense than this mishmash.eric 05:10, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes AND no. Yes, because Wikipedia talk pages are a PITA to use for in depth discussion.  No, because decisions are then being made 'off line' by a select group rather than in the open.  Archiving mailing list discussions here would go part way (but not all the way) to solving this.  However, I'd say that it would certainly help improve the quality of the articles, which is the main thing. —Morven 16:08, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree with Morven's comments regarding a possible mailing list: it would promote the existence of a "cabal" who wouldn't necessarily always act in the open. It'd be nice if talk pages included a web forum where one could make threaded comments; perhaps  the mediawiki software could be updated to include this? -- Cabalamat 16:27, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, I *had* worried about the "cabal" aspect - which is why I suggested religiously archiving discussion here. Secondly, since the "cabal" would be made up of the people who actually make regular contributions to a small and well-defined subject area. I'll wait a couple more days for comment, but put in a feature request in the meantime. --Rlandmann 21:05, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You are kidding, right? Email lists are a dreadful hangover of an outdated era. The technology became obsolete close to 10 years ago, and its usability these days is severely limited. Why on earth would anyone volunteer to subject themselves to a mailing list when there are vastly better communication methods at their fingertips? Methods that are open to all, I might add. I'd rather use Netscape 1.0 on Windows 3.1 than inflict yet another mailing list on my poor overloaded, spam-ridden inbox. A wiki is to a mailing list as an Airbus A340 is to an Avro Lancastrian. Tannin 21:22, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Personally I'd take the Avro, becauese older is generally cooler, but that's mostly beside the point. Just about any system would be preferable to what is currently in place. -eric 21:35, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

 * Point taken. I'm thinking that a web-based forum would be far better - in terms of providing the threading that seems to be the main problem with the "butcher's paper" approach we have now, and in terms of linking to and from the wiki. I sincerely hope that we can get a threaded forum implemented here within the pedia, but I don't think it's too bad a thing to have it hosted elsewhere, at least in the interim. --Rlandmann 21:40, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * It's a shame that such 'outdated' technology still works better -- with a properly functioning client, something that most fail to produce -- than most of the 'newer' alternatives. I find my email lists quite usable indeed, compared to many of the alternatives.

 * However, I do believe that Wikipedia needs to have better support for threaded discussion. This is possibly the #1 most needed feature for the software, IMO.  If we're suggesting mailing lists, Tannin, it's because at least they work fairly easily and well by comparison.

 * I also prefer the permanent record of email; malicious or just plain nutty people can easily lay a false trail of confusion through the Wikipedia record, and while sure, we have article history, for any discussion forum of reasonable activity, that's too painful for anyone sane to deal with. —Morven 07:16, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

Variants?
I've poked around looking for information on variants (prompted by the three entries for various similar Lancair Columbia models) and couldn't find whether it was preferred to merge them into one article (i.e. Lancair Columbia) or separate (Lancair Columbia 350, Lancair Columbia 400, etc). On a side-note, Rlandmann, I've changed the two aircraft you placed in the Category:Home-build aircraft to Category:Homebuilt aircraft to correspond more closely with the actual terms used in the General Aviation community. I'm planning to go through any other kit aircraft and add them over the next few days. -eric 16:28, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

 * There is no "policy" on this - for now, I think we're just happy to be getting articles! I think that length should be the determining factor here - and few variants are written up in sufficient depth (at the moment) to necessitate separate articles. If it were me, I'd be putting the article under Lancair Columbia with redirects from the variants until and unless any of them dominates the article to the degree where splitting it off seems better --Rlandmann 21:26, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Straw poll - Web forum (was mailing list)
Just a quick show of hands here - if a web-based forum were set up to discuss issues relevant to this WikiProject - who would be interested in participating? Please place your signature below by 00:00 1 August. --Rlandmann 09:44, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For it
 * Rlandmann 09:44, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * N328KF (Joseph) 13:34, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)
 * eric 15:55, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * ✈ James C. 17:50, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)
 * —Morven 23:16, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Not for it

Abstain
 * Bobblewik 13:31, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC) (I do not feel qualified to predict what I would do).
 * Greyengine5 15:12, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC) (although depending how it was done, i might be either for it or against it)
 * Cabalamat 19:58, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC) (I'm not sure whether I would be able/prepared to devote much time to it).

Comments/Questions:
Would this be on the wikipedia or on some third party site? Are we going to wait until the wikipedia has a forum feature or try and find some sort of free web forum- and if that, which one. Greyengine5 17:09, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)
 * it's been suggested that the talk pages be revamped, however i do not think this will happen soon. a simple off site forum could be made freely on tripod.lycos.co.uk using phpBB. ✈ James C. 17:50, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)

 * Ok well thats pretty reasonble, I changed my vote to 'abstain'. Depending on how it was actually done I think it could work well, though it might have some problems. I think if the forum had admins, I wouldn't want it to be people who were not wikipedia admins.
 * Also, if wiki ever comes up with a better forum system, I think it be important to be able transfer the history over. It might be worthwhile to see if any other projects have done this and get some input from them as well. Greyengine5 19:29, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)

If there are more votes in favour than against by the time the poll closes, I will be seeking an off-wikipedia forum to have this forum hosted. I'm open to suggestions, but my thinking is leaning towards Delphi forums - http://www.delphiforums.com largely because of their long-term stability.

Membership would be open to all, and a prominent link from this page to the external forum would be maintained. Discussion from the forum would be archived back here regularly (how regularly will depend on the traffic - weekly? monthly?

I'm not going to hold my breath until similar threaded discussions are available at wikipedia, but if and when this feature becomes available, the external forum would be shut down and discussion moved back here.

Finally, there's nothing more "sinister" about wikipedians using an external forum to discuss aspects of a project than if we were exchanging private email, or chatting via IRC or any other IM network (or meeting in person over a cup of coffee). In fact, a web forum ensures a transparency and accountability that none of those other modes of communication do. --Rlandmann 22:34, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * A quick look at delphi makes it look extremely full of ads. I'm inclined to go with James' phpBB suggestion, I've used it in the past and it works pretty well. I actually have (way too much) webspace available, along with a pretty short url. So, no ads, and no costs. I'd be glad to install it (actually I'll play around with it now, just for kicks.) -eric 23:50, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

 * Ok, that literally took three minutes to set up (www.aeronaut.ca/wikiforum/), if you'd like to see how it runs and if it's preferable to the existing wiki talk or delphi forums. -eric 00:08, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

 * Does anyone have an in with anyone like airliners.net? Maybe they wouldn't mind us having a forum for ourselves, considering what we're doing ostensibly benefits them as well? I have a membership there already, dunno about the rest of you. -Joseph 03:13, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)

 * I checked out the phpbb one- seems pretty nice. I wonder if there's some GPL'd forum software wikipedia could incorporate in the future, so projects could have this hosted off wikipedia. In the meantaime though, is there a way to have this one send updates when somone posted a new comment there? Greyengine5 13:17, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)

 * So, it's settled, then? -Joseph 21:51, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)

 * Yes - I've just made a post there for anyone who cares to take a look --Rlandmann 23:09, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Standardized Title Formatting
This may be redundant, but I've poked around and didn't see any mention of it elsewhere: we need to have a standardized way of titling aircraft pages. I propose "Manufacturer Model Name", e.g. "De Havilland Canada DHC-3 Otter". For any aircraft that don't have a name (e.g. Messerschmitt Me 163) simply omit that. Likewise omit the model name for aircraft that don't have one. This might not be the most intuitive titling scheme, but it is the most complete and IMO the best. To account for its lack-of-intuitiveness, numerous redirects for each aircraft would have to be made, but that is fairly easy in wikipedia. Anyways, thoughts? -Lommer 05:31, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * See Naming conventions (aircraft) for the current standard. —Morven 07:31, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/General