This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of racing aircraft article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have no issue with the exclusion criteria as such, but despite the criterion excluding unmodified military aircraft not built for racing, there are quite a few military aircraft in the list. Is it the contention that these were modified? If so, they would all need to have a reference. The same goes for the Beechcraft Staggerwing. YSSYguy ( talk) 06:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
MOS:FLAG and MOS:LISTS say that national flags should not be used in lists except where the nationality of the item is a significant characteristic. WP:AVILIST says that this applies to lists of aircraft, and allows that exceptions such as flags may be included by local consensus. Are racing aircraft an exception in this regard, since the sport is international in flavour? Is the nationality of a racing aircraft a significant characteristic, or is it no more significant than that of say a famous fighter aircraft or passenger jet? Should we allow national flags in this list? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 16:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
OTOH, several types you just deleted, including the Bäumer Sausewind were designed and built as racers ("designed to compete in a 1925 light-aircraft race" per one of the refs on its page), hence part of the rationale for the names of the races being included. Likewise the Travel Air 5000 was built specifically for the Dole race and Northrop Gamma made its name as a long distance record breaking aircraft, while also entering conventional races. The Albatros L 69 was about as much a "trainer" as the Do 17 was a mailplane - a cover - as flight says it: "was designed mainly for racing" - nowithstanding the front cockpit whose occupant would never have been able to escape in a crash. - NiD.29 ( talk) 00:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
The Travel Air 5000s were custom built for the Dole race (having a slightly smaller span, higher empty weight, changes to the control surfaces, additional tankage and additional installed equipment). I am updating the page with new sources. The main ref on the L 69 page is the flight article ( [1] & [2]) - which blasts a huge hole in the "trainer" claim - stating that the "student's cockpit" was utterly inaccessible (dangerously so) and was clearly designed for speed rather than as a trainer. - NiD.29 ( talk) 22:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
At present this list has a column for the Intended race (may not have entered). WP:AVILIST says that such non-standard columns should not be included unless there is a local consensus to do so. Some racers - and non-racing types - have been entered in a wide variety of races, while others have been made and flown for a single race. It is hard to argue, as the list presently indicates, that the Supermarine Spitfire racers have only been converted for the Kings Cup air race, see here for example: really, this particular cell should be left blank. So, rather than have a random scatter of blank cells, would it be better if any race-specific comments were added in the Notes rather than having their own column? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 17:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Just a reminder that per WP:AVILIST, the Date field needs to contain a date so that it can be sorted on. It a plane has not flown, the date of cancellation should be entered. If there is no formal cancellation date, then we need to find another suitable one. As a starter I should say that any verifiable date of the correct era would do, with any necessary explanation in the Notes, e.g. "Date work stopped" or "Date of last known activity" or whatever. Certainly, "n/a" is not an acceptable date value because a) it cannot be sorted on and b) there will be an applicable date, we just haven't found/agreed it yet. It is better in such cases to leave the field blank. If any editor feels the need to stick to the date of first flight and agree there a common value to be entered in the date field of unflown types, then please take it up on the Avilist talk page not here. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 15:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of racing aircraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of racing aircraft article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have no issue with the exclusion criteria as such, but despite the criterion excluding unmodified military aircraft not built for racing, there are quite a few military aircraft in the list. Is it the contention that these were modified? If so, they would all need to have a reference. The same goes for the Beechcraft Staggerwing. YSSYguy ( talk) 06:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
MOS:FLAG and MOS:LISTS say that national flags should not be used in lists except where the nationality of the item is a significant characteristic. WP:AVILIST says that this applies to lists of aircraft, and allows that exceptions such as flags may be included by local consensus. Are racing aircraft an exception in this regard, since the sport is international in flavour? Is the nationality of a racing aircraft a significant characteristic, or is it no more significant than that of say a famous fighter aircraft or passenger jet? Should we allow national flags in this list? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 16:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
OTOH, several types you just deleted, including the Bäumer Sausewind were designed and built as racers ("designed to compete in a 1925 light-aircraft race" per one of the refs on its page), hence part of the rationale for the names of the races being included. Likewise the Travel Air 5000 was built specifically for the Dole race and Northrop Gamma made its name as a long distance record breaking aircraft, while also entering conventional races. The Albatros L 69 was about as much a "trainer" as the Do 17 was a mailplane - a cover - as flight says it: "was designed mainly for racing" - nowithstanding the front cockpit whose occupant would never have been able to escape in a crash. - NiD.29 ( talk) 00:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
The Travel Air 5000s were custom built for the Dole race (having a slightly smaller span, higher empty weight, changes to the control surfaces, additional tankage and additional installed equipment). I am updating the page with new sources. The main ref on the L 69 page is the flight article ( [1] & [2]) - which blasts a huge hole in the "trainer" claim - stating that the "student's cockpit" was utterly inaccessible (dangerously so) and was clearly designed for speed rather than as a trainer. - NiD.29 ( talk) 22:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
At present this list has a column for the Intended race (may not have entered). WP:AVILIST says that such non-standard columns should not be included unless there is a local consensus to do so. Some racers - and non-racing types - have been entered in a wide variety of races, while others have been made and flown for a single race. It is hard to argue, as the list presently indicates, that the Supermarine Spitfire racers have only been converted for the Kings Cup air race, see here for example: really, this particular cell should be left blank. So, rather than have a random scatter of blank cells, would it be better if any race-specific comments were added in the Notes rather than having their own column? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 17:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Just a reminder that per WP:AVILIST, the Date field needs to contain a date so that it can be sorted on. It a plane has not flown, the date of cancellation should be entered. If there is no formal cancellation date, then we need to find another suitable one. As a starter I should say that any verifiable date of the correct era would do, with any necessary explanation in the Notes, e.g. "Date work stopped" or "Date of last known activity" or whatever. Certainly, "n/a" is not an acceptable date value because a) it cannot be sorted on and b) there will be an applicable date, we just haven't found/agreed it yet. It is better in such cases to leave the field blank. If any editor feels the need to stick to the date of first flight and agree there a common value to be entered in the date field of unflown types, then please take it up on the Avilist talk page not here. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 15:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of racing aircraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)