![]() | Aviation: Aircraft Project‑class | |||||||||
|
![]() | WikiProject Aircraft was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 13 June 2011. |
WikiProject Aircraft talk — Archives
pre-2004
[
General
|
Strategy
|
Table History
|
Aircraft lists
|
Table Standards
|
Other Tables
|
Footer
|
Airbox
|
Series ]
2004
[
Mar–Aug
|
Aug ]
— 2005
[
Mar
|
May
|
July
|
Aug
|
Oct ]
— 2006
[
Feb
|
Mar
|
May
|
Jun
|
Aug
|
Oct
|
Nov–Dec ]
2007
[
Jan–May
|
Jun–Oct
|
Nov–Dec ]
— 2008
[
Jan
|
Feb–Apr
|
Apr–July
|
July–Sept
|
Sept–Dec ]
— 2009
[
Jan–July
|
Aug–Oct
|
Oct–Dec ]
2010
[
Jan–March
|
April–June
|
June–Aug
|
Sept–Dec ]
— 2011
[
Jan–April
|
May–Aug
|
Sept-Dec ]
— 2012
[
Jan-July
|
July-Dec ]
2013
[
Jan-July
|
July-Dec ]
— 2014
[
Jan-July
|
July-Dec ]
— 2015
[
Jan-July
|
Aug-Dec ]
— 2016
[
Jan-Dec ]
— 2017
[
Jan-Dec ]
2018
[
Jan-Dec ]
— 2019
[
Jan-May
|
June–Dec ]
— 2020
[
Jan-Dec ]
— 2021-2023
[
Jan-June 21
|
June 21-March 23
|
March 23-Nov 23 ]
![]() |
![]() |
Aviation WikiProject Articles for review |
|
Lists of aircraft used to have images of each aircraft in the list. [1] Back in 2015, 4 people voted to get rid of them and 1 said to keep them. I want to have a discussion with more people noticing and participating. Does having images of things not aid in understanding them? List of famous buildings usually have a picture of the buildings such as List_of_Ancient_Greek_temples#List. Same with list of famous people. I don't see why any list about anything wouldn't have pictures. List of sport utility vehicles and many other lists of civilian vehicles have images in their lists. Should they have them but not lists for military vehicles? Dream Focus 00:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
I was thinking of splitting the list of Piper Aircraft from the Piper Aircraft article so that it is identical to Beechcraft and Cessna, which have separate articles for their aircraft. (All three lists are roughly the same size, so even without the the "Big 3" comparison it seems they should be treated the same way.) However, I realized maybe it was better to instead merge the Beechcraft and Cessna lists back into their respective articles. What do you guys think? The one benefit I have found for separate articles is that it allows the aircraft/products section in the main article to focus on only the aircraft the company is currently producing. However, I don't know whether this is a distinction worth preserving. – Noha307 ( talk) 20:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I am seeing many aircraft 'See also' sections having nationalities appended to aircraft types by use of templates, an example here. Pinging User:Hohum as the adding editor. Nationality is not a relevant defining feature of these aircraft, the links are there because they are similar types. These template links are unnecessary as clicking on any blue link gives the nationality in the lead section or infobox, if navigation popups are enabled nationality is revealed just by hovering over the links. They clutter the section and complicate the addition of links, especially by new users. I have not seen any discussion to gain consensus on this linking style. I oppose these links and propose that they are restored to their plain versions. I am further concerned that this link style might be applied to other aircraft type lists in articles such as the applications sections of engine articles. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
So we're clear on how various options look:
Related development Aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era
Related lists |
Related development Aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era
Related lists |
Related development Aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era
Related lists |
Related development Aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era
Related lists |
( Hohum @) 13:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye#Requested move 23 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 11:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Aviation: Aircraft Project‑class | |||||||||
|
![]() | WikiProject Aircraft was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 13 June 2011. |
WikiProject Aircraft talk — Archives
pre-2004
[
General
|
Strategy
|
Table History
|
Aircraft lists
|
Table Standards
|
Other Tables
|
Footer
|
Airbox
|
Series ]
2004
[
Mar–Aug
|
Aug ]
— 2005
[
Mar
|
May
|
July
|
Aug
|
Oct ]
— 2006
[
Feb
|
Mar
|
May
|
Jun
|
Aug
|
Oct
|
Nov–Dec ]
2007
[
Jan–May
|
Jun–Oct
|
Nov–Dec ]
— 2008
[
Jan
|
Feb–Apr
|
Apr–July
|
July–Sept
|
Sept–Dec ]
— 2009
[
Jan–July
|
Aug–Oct
|
Oct–Dec ]
2010
[
Jan–March
|
April–June
|
June–Aug
|
Sept–Dec ]
— 2011
[
Jan–April
|
May–Aug
|
Sept-Dec ]
— 2012
[
Jan-July
|
July-Dec ]
2013
[
Jan-July
|
July-Dec ]
— 2014
[
Jan-July
|
July-Dec ]
— 2015
[
Jan-July
|
Aug-Dec ]
— 2016
[
Jan-Dec ]
— 2017
[
Jan-Dec ]
2018
[
Jan-Dec ]
— 2019
[
Jan-May
|
June–Dec ]
— 2020
[
Jan-Dec ]
— 2021-2023
[
Jan-June 21
|
June 21-March 23
|
March 23-Nov 23 ]
![]() |
![]() |
Aviation WikiProject Articles for review |
|
Lists of aircraft used to have images of each aircraft in the list. [1] Back in 2015, 4 people voted to get rid of them and 1 said to keep them. I want to have a discussion with more people noticing and participating. Does having images of things not aid in understanding them? List of famous buildings usually have a picture of the buildings such as List_of_Ancient_Greek_temples#List. Same with list of famous people. I don't see why any list about anything wouldn't have pictures. List of sport utility vehicles and many other lists of civilian vehicles have images in their lists. Should they have them but not lists for military vehicles? Dream Focus 00:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
I was thinking of splitting the list of Piper Aircraft from the Piper Aircraft article so that it is identical to Beechcraft and Cessna, which have separate articles for their aircraft. (All three lists are roughly the same size, so even without the the "Big 3" comparison it seems they should be treated the same way.) However, I realized maybe it was better to instead merge the Beechcraft and Cessna lists back into their respective articles. What do you guys think? The one benefit I have found for separate articles is that it allows the aircraft/products section in the main article to focus on only the aircraft the company is currently producing. However, I don't know whether this is a distinction worth preserving. – Noha307 ( talk) 20:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I am seeing many aircraft 'See also' sections having nationalities appended to aircraft types by use of templates, an example here. Pinging User:Hohum as the adding editor. Nationality is not a relevant defining feature of these aircraft, the links are there because they are similar types. These template links are unnecessary as clicking on any blue link gives the nationality in the lead section or infobox, if navigation popups are enabled nationality is revealed just by hovering over the links. They clutter the section and complicate the addition of links, especially by new users. I have not seen any discussion to gain consensus on this linking style. I oppose these links and propose that they are restored to their plain versions. I am further concerned that this link style might be applied to other aircraft type lists in articles such as the applications sections of engine articles. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
So we're clear on how various options look:
Related development Aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era
Related lists |
Related development Aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era
Related lists |
Related development Aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era
Related lists |
Related development Aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era
Related lists |
( Hohum @) 13:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye#Requested move 23 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 11:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)