This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The two lists currently in this article, of fixed- and rotary-winged types, should be merged. An extra column will be needed to classify the different configurations. The other columns may also need some rationalisation. See WP:AVILIST for more detailed guidelines. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 10:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Basic information such as the class of aicraft needs adding. WP:AVILIST specifies standard columns for Type, Country, Class, Role, Date, Status and Notes.
Some of the existing columns fall outside these characteristics. The number built is not especially significant and can be deleted. The comparative performance figures probably are a strong reason for readers to come here and should stay, at least for now.
Unless anybody has a more practical proposal, I hope to edit them along these lines and eventually merge them, per the above thread. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 10:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
The table is looking pretty cramped, due to the number of columns. I propose deleting the three columns for maximum weight, cruising speed and service ceiling. They are not the most significant figures used in transport aircraft comparisons and I think that the important ones, such as payload and range, would be a lot easier to appreciate. Comments appreciated, as I know that this can be a sensitive issue. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 16:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
A lot of light transport and communications aircraft missing from the list, have you an inclusion criteria in mind ? MilborneOne ( talk) 17:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Most of the dates currently given appear to be dates in service. For lists covering multiple operators such as this one, the date given should be that of the first flight (or of project cancellation if it never flew). — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 20:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Here is my proposal of an article...
[Entire article cut to preserve page usability]
Fabrice Ram ( talk) 02:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
[User:[username]/[pagename]
) and post a link to it here, along with an explanation of your changes. At present, that explanation is sorely lacking.I have now populated the empty 'Retired' section with all the types I am 100% certain are now fully retired. Most were no-brainers for an old lag such as myself, but several types required further investigation, such that along the way I was able to update 'List of Operators' pages on several individual types e.g. DHC-5 Buffalo. Some of us are old enough to remember the DHC-5 still being demonstrated at Farnborough as a new aircraft 'in production'. (Yes, that was the one that had a mishap right in front of its potential buyers)
Elsewhere I have applied 'if in doubt, leave it out', and may have left particular types off the list. But it's a start, and it gives others the opportunity to consider my efforts as a first draft, and improve it with further edits.
The next stage, when I have recovered my sanity, is to remove the duplicate entries that are still lurking on the 'Out of Production' list. Then we will have truly made progress.
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The two lists currently in this article, of fixed- and rotary-winged types, should be merged. An extra column will be needed to classify the different configurations. The other columns may also need some rationalisation. See WP:AVILIST for more detailed guidelines. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 10:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Basic information such as the class of aicraft needs adding. WP:AVILIST specifies standard columns for Type, Country, Class, Role, Date, Status and Notes.
Some of the existing columns fall outside these characteristics. The number built is not especially significant and can be deleted. The comparative performance figures probably are a strong reason for readers to come here and should stay, at least for now.
Unless anybody has a more practical proposal, I hope to edit them along these lines and eventually merge them, per the above thread. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 10:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
The table is looking pretty cramped, due to the number of columns. I propose deleting the three columns for maximum weight, cruising speed and service ceiling. They are not the most significant figures used in transport aircraft comparisons and I think that the important ones, such as payload and range, would be a lot easier to appreciate. Comments appreciated, as I know that this can be a sensitive issue. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 16:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
A lot of light transport and communications aircraft missing from the list, have you an inclusion criteria in mind ? MilborneOne ( talk) 17:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Most of the dates currently given appear to be dates in service. For lists covering multiple operators such as this one, the date given should be that of the first flight (or of project cancellation if it never flew). — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 20:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Here is my proposal of an article...
[Entire article cut to preserve page usability]
Fabrice Ram ( talk) 02:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
[User:[username]/[pagename]
) and post a link to it here, along with an explanation of your changes. At present, that explanation is sorely lacking.I have now populated the empty 'Retired' section with all the types I am 100% certain are now fully retired. Most were no-brainers for an old lag such as myself, but several types required further investigation, such that along the way I was able to update 'List of Operators' pages on several individual types e.g. DHC-5 Buffalo. Some of us are old enough to remember the DHC-5 still being demonstrated at Farnborough as a new aircraft 'in production'. (Yes, that was the one that had a mishap right in front of its potential buyers)
Elsewhere I have applied 'if in doubt, leave it out', and may have left particular types off the list. But it's a start, and it gives others the opportunity to consider my efforts as a first draft, and improve it with further edits.
The next stage, when I have recovered my sanity, is to remove the duplicate entries that are still lurking on the 'Out of Production' list. Then we will have truly made progress.