Aviation Project‑class | |||||||
|
|
|
Aviation WikiProject |
---|
General information |
|
I have a general policy question about "users", and in particular military users. I get the impression that some contributors are rather keen to associate aircraft with, let us say, the RAF or some other AF. I've seen a few articles now where an aircraft whose use was mostly in the civil field is ascribed to an AF on the basis of one or two of the type operating under military markings for trials or as a workhorse for the development of systems that might have military use. These were mostly civilians used in peace-time. Of course, there have been many civilian aircraft impressed into military use in war-time, sometimes with only a few of type.
Here is a specific example of the difficulty: currently we list the Avro 618 as being used by both the RAF and the RAE. The casual reader might suppose that these aircraft were in service in significant numbers with the RAF in the early 1930s. As far as I know (Thetford's book) there is no record of it having been with the RAF. Peter Cooper, in his Farnborough history notes Fokker VIIa/3m J7986 in 1936 in the wireless wing; but even supposing this was really an Avro 618 (which from one other web ref it does not seem to have been), would this really justify including the RAF as a user of the aircraft? Yes, it wore an RAF serial, but is this what we mean by a user?
In this particular case could you argue that the RAE was a user on the basis that the knowledgeable would know that the RAE hangers contained several one-offs. But would we list the RAE as a user of the Dornier Do335, for example; since it wore an RAF serial (AM223) in its brief U.K. life, should we list both RAF and RAE as users? Surely not?
I'm new to this and may have overlooked some guidelines; but if they don't exist, maybe they should? TSRL ( talk) 08:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
AM223 is not a RAF serial number, it stands for Air Ministry and they were applied to captured axis aircraft during and after WW2.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.213.16 ( talk • contribs) 12.10, 1 September 2009
I recently revamped the style guide page, dividing it up into separate subpages. Hopefully this makes it clearer and easier to cite in discussions. There are a few items to address in rounding out the page. Please expand on this list so we can come up with a definitive guide. Trevor MacInnis contribs 08:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Editors at Burlington International Airport have taken it upon themselves to chronicle any plane landing with its oil warning light on, which is about as serious as anything gets at a small airport which is little used. We could use some robust guidelines under "incidents and accidents." Right now, there aren't any. I would appreciate suggestions on eliminating this section from BTV, which is now quite boring. Thanks. Student7 ( talk) 15:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
This all out war against the Hyphen has got to stop. If a Hyphen is used as part of a noun then it should be embraced with open arms. It is causing so much hassle having hyphens removed from article titles when they are patently supposed to be there. Let us have common sense prevail shall we?! Petebutt ( talk) 17:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Just as we want the refs inline, the comparable aircraft should also be inline.
Somebody has compared the current aircraft against aircraft X for reason Y and we've got a place in the article where we use this comparison and an inline reference to follow.
Anything else is a needless editorial value judgment. Hcobb ( talk) 13:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that many articles about aircraft that are no longer being manufactured start with something like "The Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress was a ....". In this particular case, many examples of the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress still exist and in this case, a few are still flying. I submit that only aircraft that do not exist anymore, even if the only examples of survivors are in museums, should begin with "The Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress is a ....", since "was" implies that none still exist. I have noticed that in other fields, it is handled that way. For instance, in cars, the Ford Model T and Chevrolet Vega begin with "is" as well as camera articles about the Nikon F2 and Canon F-1. -- rogerd ( talk) 23:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
At Talk:List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft#Reconsidering_linking_in_this_article is a proposal to greatly simplify entries in that list by reducing wikilinks to one per event. As that list is given in wp:AVLIST as the stylistic prototype for similar lists, editors here will be interested. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Over at Mount Salak Sukhoi Superjet 100 crash, an article about a Russian plane crashing in Indonesia, my change to place metric units first for flight level, mountain height and crash site was reverted with the justification "As this is an aviation article, we should use imperial first". Is this indeed policy, and if so where? Jpatokal ( talk) 11:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I hope this is the correct place for this comment - if not, I apologize. Is there a reason why there are no tailfin designs as part of the airlines infobox? Could we add it, say, at the bottom of the infobox? Many designs are quite distinctive and different from the general airline logo. BigSteve ( talk) 10:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
At present, the core content of airline destination article is in a huge table with 'colour coded' rows. It contains information mixed up. This makes it a bit technical and clumpsy in my view. For e.g British_Airways_Destinations
May I please suggest a project to split airline destination wiki articles main table to two separate tables. The first table will list all the operationally active ones, and the second one will list terminated, seasonal, chartered flights etc with colour coding. There is a downside to this is. The 'maintenance' will be a bit of overhead since it involves moving rows when an airline discontinues/terminates a flight. However for the user - this will really help in my view since in most cases, reader will be looking for operationally active ones ( i.e the first table for e.g while planning journey) rather than historical or special ones. -- Smet ( talk) 22:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Primary sources aren't normally permitted, but the certification process is an independent validation of aircraft performances. Can we use aircraft manufacturers as a reliable source when an aircraft is certified by a reputable authority? (FAA, EASA, JCAB, CASA, TCCA...) Most specs would not be sufficient, secondary sources for wikipedia. And I don't think aviation secondary sources (Flight, Aviation week, jane's...) could have the resources to verify performance with flight tests, they rely on manufacturers too. -- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 08:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Today, there was mass removal of aircraft images from List of United States bomber aircraft. I have started a discussion about this on that article's talk page here. Thanks - theWOLFchild 22:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I've started a discussion on whether claim lists should be included in fighter pilot biographies at WT:WikiProject Military history#Victory claim lists in fighter ace biographies that may be of interest to this project's members.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 02:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
The style guide should mention the deadliest crash trivia and about how it sometimes uses original research and needs a reliable source(s). Tigerdude9 ( talk) 18:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion ongoing on the conventions concerning units in aviation at Talk:Airbus_A350_XWB#Units. Please do chip in. ExcitedEngineer ( talk) 20:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I would like to propose a common table for organizing lists of aircraft on aircraft manufacturer articles. At the moment, there is no standard format and it shows in the scattershot approaches to lists. Over the past few months, I have been bold and converted a bunch of aircraft manufacturer articles to use sortable tables. I will note that the table is not of my own creation, but was (I believe) first designed by FlugKerl.
There are a number of benefits:
When compared to the existing lists, there are a couple downsides to the table I have been using:
One other problem I have run into is coming up with a good uniform terminology for the type column. I know that information for this column should only describe the configuration and role of the aircraft – and not historical notes – but beyond that I am not entirely sure. So far, I have been using a number of engines-number of wings-role format. One thing I am not sure of is whether it should be exactly the same between all instances or should include some variation for each. For example, many companies existed for lengths of time such that they built both piston engine and jet aircraft. However, for a company that never built a jet aircraft it seems weird to specify for each entry that it has a piston engine.
A couple notes about the way I have been using the table so far, specifically accuracy of information:
Finally, there are a few other issues I have run into that are irrespective of what type of formatting is used:
All-in-all, I think the table is a good solution, but I would like to hear if anyone else has suggestions or comments. – Noha307 ( talk) 21:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Model name | First flight | Number built | Type |
---|---|---|---|
Brewster XSBA | 1936 | 1 | Single engine monoplane scout bomber |
Brewster F2A Buffalo | 1937 | 509 | Single engine monoplane naval fighter |
Brewster SB2A Buccaneer | 1941 | 771 | Single engine monoplane scout bomber |
Brewster F3A Corsair | 1943 | 735 | Single engine monoplane naval fighter |
Brewster XA-32 | 1943 | 2 | Prototype single engine mononplane ground attack aircraft |
Model | Date | Number | Type |
---|---|---|---|
XSBA | 1936 | 1 | Single engine monoplane scout bomber |
F2A Buffalo | 1937 | 509 | Single engine monoplane naval fighter |
SB2A Buccaneer | 1941 | 771 | Single engine monoplane scout bomber |
F3A Corsair | 1943 | 735 | Single engine monoplane naval fighter |
XA-32 | 1943 | 2 | Prototype single engine monoplane ground attack aircraft |
A few more refined test tables. First in the initially proposed style:
Model name | First flight | Number built | Type |
---|---|---|---|
Brewster XSBA | 1936 | 1 | Single engine monoplane scout bomber |
Brewster F2A Buffalo | 1937 | 509 | Single engine monoplane naval fighter |
Brewster SB2A Buccaneer | 1941 | 771 | Single engine monoplane scout bomber |
Brewster F3A Corsair | 1943 | 735 | Single engine monoplane naval fighter |
Brewster XA-32 | 1943 | 2 | Prototype single engine monoplane ground attack aircraft |
Second, in the AVLIST style:
Type | Date | No. Built | Class | Role | Status |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Brewster XSBA | 1936 | 1 | Single piston engine | Bomber | Operational |
Brewster F2A Buffalo | 1937 | 509 | Single piston engine | Fighter | Production |
Brewster SB2A Buccaneer | 1941 | 771 | Single piston engine | Bomber | Production |
Brewster F3A Corsair | 1943 | 735 | Single piston engine | Fighter | Production |
Brewster XA-32 | 1943 | 2 | Single piston engine | Attack | Prototype |
I agree that most detail should be left to the dedicated articles. I also definitely agree there needs to be some sort of standard notation for aircraft built under license. The problem with not including the manufacturers name is you end up with entries that are too vague or short, such as " K", which seem a bit ridiculous. – Noha307 ( talk) 00:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Type | Country | Class | Role | Date | Status | No. | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XSBA | (omit) | Propeller | Bomber | 1936 | Prototype | 1 | (citations etc) |
F2A Buffalo | Piston engine | Fighter | 1937 | Production | 509 | ||
SB2A Buccaneer | Piston engine | Bomber | 1941 | Production | 771 | ||
F3A Corsair | Piston engine | Fighter | 1943 | Production | 735 | ||
XA-32 | Piston engine | Attack | 1943 | Prototype | 2 |
{{avilisthead|nocountry}}
and would save endless future arguments over columns.I would have to agree that the term multirole has a very specific connotation when it comes to aircraft. Most people would interpret the term in that military context rather than the more general meaning of "having more than one role".
One problem I have encountered is that "roles" are geared much more towards military than civilian aircraft. Light civil airplanes especially don't usually have a role associated with them. One of the closest terms I could find was "cabin monoplane", but this is an admittedly obsolete term that appears to have more or less originated in the 1920s and 30s to differentiate the enclosed airplanes from the ones with an open cockpit. I would hesitate to call a Cessna 172 or a Piper PA-28 Cherokee a "utility" aircraft, as, like the term "mulitrole", it seems (at least to me) to have a particular connotation in aviation – essentially light cargo carrying aircraft. However, it also ends up being a catch-all category for any light airplane. Unfortunately, it may be what we have to end up with as there seems to be nothing better to use.
All that being said, my purpose for this discussion is not to rehash the particular words used to define certain aircraft, so I don't mean to seem overly focused on that.
@ NiD.29: Your concern about the table being too wide is surprising because in my initial proposal my worry was that the table was not wide enough and, while I realized it works well on mobile, it would result in a bunch of unused space on the right side of the screen when accessed on desktops. This was the reason I never converted the Douglas Aircraft Company article – it has a large number of aircraft (73+) and therefore the problem would be particularly acute. The only partial solution I could come up with to solve it was to fill the space with thumbnail images.
@ Steelpillow: I can see now that I should have started this discussion on the lists page, thanks for linking to it there. – Noha307 ( talk) 19:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Type | Date | No. | Class | Role | Status | Notes |
---|
Type | Class | Role | Date | No. | Status | Notes |
---|
MOS:DAB is ambiguous about how to format code-based entries on DAB pages, and putting designators/identifiers on DAB pages is a bit of a unique case anyway. Since there are quite a few of these entries out there, in the interests of consistency I propose adding a short section to the Aviation style guide specifically for DAB page entries.
For formatting, I suggest the following:
For example:
While stating the code at the beginning of the entry is probably redundant, my sense is that it is more consistent with the examples given in MOS:DAB, all of which start with a phrase that clearly relates back to term being disambiguated (which "General Juan N. Álvarez International Airport", for example, does not). In essence, it helps to clarify why the item in question appears on this DAB page at all.
I suppose an argument could be made that MOS:DABREDIR should apply (since ICAO and IATA codes are often treated as alternative names), which would require putting the DAB link on the code itself to a code-specific redirect page, i.e.:
This seems silly to me, and would create a lot more work (and redirects) that all add little of value.
Thoughts?
RAult ( talk) 18:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Talk:Timeline of aviation about the criteria for listing aircraft introductions and retirements by individual operators; I think that in most cases, only the first and last operator should be listed, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Your input is obviously welcome. Carguychris ( talk) 18:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Lockheed C-130 Hercules operators § Flag icons in section headings. Marchjuly ( talk) 21:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
In the wider context, the term "manned" is generally being replaced by euphemisms in order to avoid gender connotations. However it has dual usage, according to context referring either to the male of our species, or to "mankind", aka Homo sapiens generally. This latter meaning is often the correct technical usage in aviation. For example a drone carrying passengers cannot be described as "crewed" because it isn't. The generic term for both crew and passengers is "complement", but that has no related adjective. So we use "manned". Thus, say autonomous e-drones are classified as manned or unmanned. There have been a few edit conflicts over this recently.
So I propose that we add a new Terminology subsection to the section on Content/English and explain it there, along the lines of:
The generic term for both crew and passengers is "complement". For the adjective, use "manned". Thus, say autonomous e-drones are classified as manned or unmanned; none is "crewed" .
— Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 10:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Aviation Project‑class | |||||||
|
|
|
Aviation WikiProject |
---|
General information |
|
I have a general policy question about "users", and in particular military users. I get the impression that some contributors are rather keen to associate aircraft with, let us say, the RAF or some other AF. I've seen a few articles now where an aircraft whose use was mostly in the civil field is ascribed to an AF on the basis of one or two of the type operating under military markings for trials or as a workhorse for the development of systems that might have military use. These were mostly civilians used in peace-time. Of course, there have been many civilian aircraft impressed into military use in war-time, sometimes with only a few of type.
Here is a specific example of the difficulty: currently we list the Avro 618 as being used by both the RAF and the RAE. The casual reader might suppose that these aircraft were in service in significant numbers with the RAF in the early 1930s. As far as I know (Thetford's book) there is no record of it having been with the RAF. Peter Cooper, in his Farnborough history notes Fokker VIIa/3m J7986 in 1936 in the wireless wing; but even supposing this was really an Avro 618 (which from one other web ref it does not seem to have been), would this really justify including the RAF as a user of the aircraft? Yes, it wore an RAF serial, but is this what we mean by a user?
In this particular case could you argue that the RAE was a user on the basis that the knowledgeable would know that the RAE hangers contained several one-offs. But would we list the RAE as a user of the Dornier Do335, for example; since it wore an RAF serial (AM223) in its brief U.K. life, should we list both RAF and RAE as users? Surely not?
I'm new to this and may have overlooked some guidelines; but if they don't exist, maybe they should? TSRL ( talk) 08:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
AM223 is not a RAF serial number, it stands for Air Ministry and they were applied to captured axis aircraft during and after WW2.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.213.16 ( talk • contribs) 12.10, 1 September 2009
I recently revamped the style guide page, dividing it up into separate subpages. Hopefully this makes it clearer and easier to cite in discussions. There are a few items to address in rounding out the page. Please expand on this list so we can come up with a definitive guide. Trevor MacInnis contribs 08:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Editors at Burlington International Airport have taken it upon themselves to chronicle any plane landing with its oil warning light on, which is about as serious as anything gets at a small airport which is little used. We could use some robust guidelines under "incidents and accidents." Right now, there aren't any. I would appreciate suggestions on eliminating this section from BTV, which is now quite boring. Thanks. Student7 ( talk) 15:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
This all out war against the Hyphen has got to stop. If a Hyphen is used as part of a noun then it should be embraced with open arms. It is causing so much hassle having hyphens removed from article titles when they are patently supposed to be there. Let us have common sense prevail shall we?! Petebutt ( talk) 17:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Just as we want the refs inline, the comparable aircraft should also be inline.
Somebody has compared the current aircraft against aircraft X for reason Y and we've got a place in the article where we use this comparison and an inline reference to follow.
Anything else is a needless editorial value judgment. Hcobb ( talk) 13:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that many articles about aircraft that are no longer being manufactured start with something like "The Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress was a ....". In this particular case, many examples of the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress still exist and in this case, a few are still flying. I submit that only aircraft that do not exist anymore, even if the only examples of survivors are in museums, should begin with "The Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress is a ....", since "was" implies that none still exist. I have noticed that in other fields, it is handled that way. For instance, in cars, the Ford Model T and Chevrolet Vega begin with "is" as well as camera articles about the Nikon F2 and Canon F-1. -- rogerd ( talk) 23:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
At Talk:List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft#Reconsidering_linking_in_this_article is a proposal to greatly simplify entries in that list by reducing wikilinks to one per event. As that list is given in wp:AVLIST as the stylistic prototype for similar lists, editors here will be interested. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Over at Mount Salak Sukhoi Superjet 100 crash, an article about a Russian plane crashing in Indonesia, my change to place metric units first for flight level, mountain height and crash site was reverted with the justification "As this is an aviation article, we should use imperial first". Is this indeed policy, and if so where? Jpatokal ( talk) 11:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I hope this is the correct place for this comment - if not, I apologize. Is there a reason why there are no tailfin designs as part of the airlines infobox? Could we add it, say, at the bottom of the infobox? Many designs are quite distinctive and different from the general airline logo. BigSteve ( talk) 10:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
At present, the core content of airline destination article is in a huge table with 'colour coded' rows. It contains information mixed up. This makes it a bit technical and clumpsy in my view. For e.g British_Airways_Destinations
May I please suggest a project to split airline destination wiki articles main table to two separate tables. The first table will list all the operationally active ones, and the second one will list terminated, seasonal, chartered flights etc with colour coding. There is a downside to this is. The 'maintenance' will be a bit of overhead since it involves moving rows when an airline discontinues/terminates a flight. However for the user - this will really help in my view since in most cases, reader will be looking for operationally active ones ( i.e the first table for e.g while planning journey) rather than historical or special ones. -- Smet ( talk) 22:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Primary sources aren't normally permitted, but the certification process is an independent validation of aircraft performances. Can we use aircraft manufacturers as a reliable source when an aircraft is certified by a reputable authority? (FAA, EASA, JCAB, CASA, TCCA...) Most specs would not be sufficient, secondary sources for wikipedia. And I don't think aviation secondary sources (Flight, Aviation week, jane's...) could have the resources to verify performance with flight tests, they rely on manufacturers too. -- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 08:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Today, there was mass removal of aircraft images from List of United States bomber aircraft. I have started a discussion about this on that article's talk page here. Thanks - theWOLFchild 22:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I've started a discussion on whether claim lists should be included in fighter pilot biographies at WT:WikiProject Military history#Victory claim lists in fighter ace biographies that may be of interest to this project's members.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 02:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
The style guide should mention the deadliest crash trivia and about how it sometimes uses original research and needs a reliable source(s). Tigerdude9 ( talk) 18:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion ongoing on the conventions concerning units in aviation at Talk:Airbus_A350_XWB#Units. Please do chip in. ExcitedEngineer ( talk) 20:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I would like to propose a common table for organizing lists of aircraft on aircraft manufacturer articles. At the moment, there is no standard format and it shows in the scattershot approaches to lists. Over the past few months, I have been bold and converted a bunch of aircraft manufacturer articles to use sortable tables. I will note that the table is not of my own creation, but was (I believe) first designed by FlugKerl.
There are a number of benefits:
When compared to the existing lists, there are a couple downsides to the table I have been using:
One other problem I have run into is coming up with a good uniform terminology for the type column. I know that information for this column should only describe the configuration and role of the aircraft – and not historical notes – but beyond that I am not entirely sure. So far, I have been using a number of engines-number of wings-role format. One thing I am not sure of is whether it should be exactly the same between all instances or should include some variation for each. For example, many companies existed for lengths of time such that they built both piston engine and jet aircraft. However, for a company that never built a jet aircraft it seems weird to specify for each entry that it has a piston engine.
A couple notes about the way I have been using the table so far, specifically accuracy of information:
Finally, there are a few other issues I have run into that are irrespective of what type of formatting is used:
All-in-all, I think the table is a good solution, but I would like to hear if anyone else has suggestions or comments. – Noha307 ( talk) 21:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Model name | First flight | Number built | Type |
---|---|---|---|
Brewster XSBA | 1936 | 1 | Single engine monoplane scout bomber |
Brewster F2A Buffalo | 1937 | 509 | Single engine monoplane naval fighter |
Brewster SB2A Buccaneer | 1941 | 771 | Single engine monoplane scout bomber |
Brewster F3A Corsair | 1943 | 735 | Single engine monoplane naval fighter |
Brewster XA-32 | 1943 | 2 | Prototype single engine mononplane ground attack aircraft |
Model | Date | Number | Type |
---|---|---|---|
XSBA | 1936 | 1 | Single engine monoplane scout bomber |
F2A Buffalo | 1937 | 509 | Single engine monoplane naval fighter |
SB2A Buccaneer | 1941 | 771 | Single engine monoplane scout bomber |
F3A Corsair | 1943 | 735 | Single engine monoplane naval fighter |
XA-32 | 1943 | 2 | Prototype single engine monoplane ground attack aircraft |
A few more refined test tables. First in the initially proposed style:
Model name | First flight | Number built | Type |
---|---|---|---|
Brewster XSBA | 1936 | 1 | Single engine monoplane scout bomber |
Brewster F2A Buffalo | 1937 | 509 | Single engine monoplane naval fighter |
Brewster SB2A Buccaneer | 1941 | 771 | Single engine monoplane scout bomber |
Brewster F3A Corsair | 1943 | 735 | Single engine monoplane naval fighter |
Brewster XA-32 | 1943 | 2 | Prototype single engine monoplane ground attack aircraft |
Second, in the AVLIST style:
Type | Date | No. Built | Class | Role | Status |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Brewster XSBA | 1936 | 1 | Single piston engine | Bomber | Operational |
Brewster F2A Buffalo | 1937 | 509 | Single piston engine | Fighter | Production |
Brewster SB2A Buccaneer | 1941 | 771 | Single piston engine | Bomber | Production |
Brewster F3A Corsair | 1943 | 735 | Single piston engine | Fighter | Production |
Brewster XA-32 | 1943 | 2 | Single piston engine | Attack | Prototype |
I agree that most detail should be left to the dedicated articles. I also definitely agree there needs to be some sort of standard notation for aircraft built under license. The problem with not including the manufacturers name is you end up with entries that are too vague or short, such as " K", which seem a bit ridiculous. – Noha307 ( talk) 00:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Type | Country | Class | Role | Date | Status | No. | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XSBA | (omit) | Propeller | Bomber | 1936 | Prototype | 1 | (citations etc) |
F2A Buffalo | Piston engine | Fighter | 1937 | Production | 509 | ||
SB2A Buccaneer | Piston engine | Bomber | 1941 | Production | 771 | ||
F3A Corsair | Piston engine | Fighter | 1943 | Production | 735 | ||
XA-32 | Piston engine | Attack | 1943 | Prototype | 2 |
{{avilisthead|nocountry}}
and would save endless future arguments over columns.I would have to agree that the term multirole has a very specific connotation when it comes to aircraft. Most people would interpret the term in that military context rather than the more general meaning of "having more than one role".
One problem I have encountered is that "roles" are geared much more towards military than civilian aircraft. Light civil airplanes especially don't usually have a role associated with them. One of the closest terms I could find was "cabin monoplane", but this is an admittedly obsolete term that appears to have more or less originated in the 1920s and 30s to differentiate the enclosed airplanes from the ones with an open cockpit. I would hesitate to call a Cessna 172 or a Piper PA-28 Cherokee a "utility" aircraft, as, like the term "mulitrole", it seems (at least to me) to have a particular connotation in aviation – essentially light cargo carrying aircraft. However, it also ends up being a catch-all category for any light airplane. Unfortunately, it may be what we have to end up with as there seems to be nothing better to use.
All that being said, my purpose for this discussion is not to rehash the particular words used to define certain aircraft, so I don't mean to seem overly focused on that.
@ NiD.29: Your concern about the table being too wide is surprising because in my initial proposal my worry was that the table was not wide enough and, while I realized it works well on mobile, it would result in a bunch of unused space on the right side of the screen when accessed on desktops. This was the reason I never converted the Douglas Aircraft Company article – it has a large number of aircraft (73+) and therefore the problem would be particularly acute. The only partial solution I could come up with to solve it was to fill the space with thumbnail images.
@ Steelpillow: I can see now that I should have started this discussion on the lists page, thanks for linking to it there. – Noha307 ( talk) 19:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Type | Date | No. | Class | Role | Status | Notes |
---|
Type | Class | Role | Date | No. | Status | Notes |
---|
MOS:DAB is ambiguous about how to format code-based entries on DAB pages, and putting designators/identifiers on DAB pages is a bit of a unique case anyway. Since there are quite a few of these entries out there, in the interests of consistency I propose adding a short section to the Aviation style guide specifically for DAB page entries.
For formatting, I suggest the following:
For example:
While stating the code at the beginning of the entry is probably redundant, my sense is that it is more consistent with the examples given in MOS:DAB, all of which start with a phrase that clearly relates back to term being disambiguated (which "General Juan N. Álvarez International Airport", for example, does not). In essence, it helps to clarify why the item in question appears on this DAB page at all.
I suppose an argument could be made that MOS:DABREDIR should apply (since ICAO and IATA codes are often treated as alternative names), which would require putting the DAB link on the code itself to a code-specific redirect page, i.e.:
This seems silly to me, and would create a lot more work (and redirects) that all add little of value.
Thoughts?
RAult ( talk) 18:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Talk:Timeline of aviation about the criteria for listing aircraft introductions and retirements by individual operators; I think that in most cases, only the first and last operator should be listed, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Your input is obviously welcome. Carguychris ( talk) 18:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Lockheed C-130 Hercules operators § Flag icons in section headings. Marchjuly ( talk) 21:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
In the wider context, the term "manned" is generally being replaced by euphemisms in order to avoid gender connotations. However it has dual usage, according to context referring either to the male of our species, or to "mankind", aka Homo sapiens generally. This latter meaning is often the correct technical usage in aviation. For example a drone carrying passengers cannot be described as "crewed" because it isn't. The generic term for both crew and passengers is "complement", but that has no related adjective. So we use "manned". Thus, say autonomous e-drones are classified as manned or unmanned. There have been a few edit conflicts over this recently.
So I propose that we add a new Terminology subsection to the section on Content/English and explain it there, along the lines of:
The generic term for both crew and passengers is "complement". For the adjective, use "manned". Thus, say autonomous e-drones are classified as manned or unmanned; none is "crewed" .
— Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 10:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)