This is the
talk page for discussing
WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Aircraft) and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Aviation: Aircraft Project‑class | ||||||||||
|
We've previously discussed adding a statement on tense to the guidelines, similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/page content#Grammatical tense, but never followed through. Are there any objections to adding that now? - BilCat ( talk) 06:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
A bit late to the party, but I lean towards the past tense. Rather than the above hypothetical dialogue around a privately-owned F-86, which indeed sounds surreal, a more meaningful situation to consider would be, e.g. your child asking you "Dad, what's a spitfire?" Would you word your answer in the present tense? I wouldn't. If the Spitfire can be described essentially as a WWII fighter, the examples still flying today no longer meaningful exist as fighters, which is what I read in WP:MOSTENSE as meaning that the past tense should be used. If a child (or a layperson) opens the article and reads the first line "The Supermarine Spitfire is a British single-seat fighter aircraft", they will be forgiven for wondering if the Spitfire is still patrolling the skies today! -- Deeday-UK ( talk) 09:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Following on a discussion on the main aircraft project page I would like to propose the following changes to this suggested guideline:
Thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 07:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Nobody else seems to have a strong view so I will change:
If there is no major objections I will make the change, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 14:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Now I've been away for a while and probably out of touch with changes of policy etc but could someone explain why we're changing things now. They'd hadn't been a problem as I understood it up til now. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 18:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Where should these links go in aircraft articles? Sometimes a given type may be included in several list articles. There is a move to stop adding them to the "See also" section (see above topic). A templated "List of lists" navbox seems an overly rigid and clumsy solution - we have enough clutter down there as it is. Should we stop adding links to list articles anyway, if they are not appropriate in the main article content? For example in the Lockheed Hercules article is a link to Military transport aircraft sufficient and we can just leave out any link to the List of military transport aircraft? To be honest, I think I prefer this last approach and see how it goes. If a good, consensual home appears then we can revisit. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 16:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Yet another tweak after reading comments:
Variants - This section describes major subtypes or variants of the aircraft. These can be arranged in subsections - see Messerschmitt Me 163 for an example of how this can be done. Related developments by the same company or major modifications by others can also be listed. See also - This section contains links to related articles or lists not already linked in the article including similar aircraft. Add an explanation why the link would help the reader. The use of the Template:Aircontent is deprecated.
MilborneOne ( talk) 14:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Recent and ongoing changes to this style guide are being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#Style guide and in various subsections of that thread. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 10:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest discontinuing the use of svg maps to show operators and adopt {{
Maplink}}
instead. This would be easier to edit and update, while also adding a nicer map interface, which can be zoomed and panned.
The SA 330 page contains a Maplink map, instead of an SVG.
What do you think?
Alex Roșu 11:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandru.rosu ( talk • contribs)
The style guide [1] states that lists of variants should only include major variants. How "major" is this, or do all variants count? Thank you for your help. CohenTheBohemian ( talk) 04:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Instead of using the title word 'development', the more appropriate words would be Creation or History. Emirthesenat ( talk) 20:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm tired of using the word "accident" regarding transportation system fatalities. It's a loaded, political word used to dismiss deaths and injury as unavoidable and/or unpredictable. We need to stop using the word "accident" throughout Wikipedia regarding transportation deaths. It's already being phased out in news publishing best practices.
Changes are being made to this section without prior discussion here. I seem to recall a recent discussion elsewhere, but there was no clear consensus to change this guideline. So maybe we need to clear the air a little here.
Firstly, one can never foresee every circumstance, so the less prescriptive we are the better. For example I do not think we should mandate the use of Template:Convert, it is there to serve us not to bind us. Second, this template does have provision for departing from its default format, and it has that facility for a reason. We should not insist either on the default or on a different format. In particular, when a source states "miles" or "mph" it may mean statute or nautical (nm, knots) miles and speeds. Primary sources often targeted a particular market, and everybody concerned knew which they meant. Secondary and tertiary sources sometimes make the wrong assumption and, without the primary source and knowledge of its market for comparison, there is no way of knowing. For this WikiProject to try and prescribe a way through this kind of mess would be hopeless.
However I do believe that we should give the units published by the manufacturer. This may need to be qualified as in, say, "X claimed but [source Y] gives Z as the true figure", or some care over rounding errors for unit conversions. This is much as the guideline currently states. However, since the Convert template does have some provision for fine-tuning rounding issues, I would delete "If not," from "If the original source does include multiple units, the original numbers should be used to avoid adding rounding errors. If not, units can be converted using the {{Convert}} template." and say something like, "Units may often be converted..."
— Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 07:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Let's discuss the use of the word "accident" when referring to airplane crashes. I changed a few instances of the word "accident" to "crash" at Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit. User:Fnlayson reverted my changes citing "more formal wording," so I opened a discussion at the talk page for the article, and they helpfully pointed me to this style guide. As I pointed out at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 14#"Accident", the term "accident" has fallen largely out of favor in reliable sources. Even in the body of the section I edited, the words had been used interchangeably prior to my edits being reverted. Further reading below, and I'm curious to hear thoughts on the subject. I acknowledge the importance of adhering to standards. Favoring "crash" instead of "accident" reflects the current language standards and avoids potential ambiguity, especially when lives (and billions of dollars) are at stake. Dreameditsbrooklyn ( talk) 00:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Dreameditsbrooklyn ( talk) 00:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
I think the key here is intent. Most events are accidents (e.g. BEA Flight 548), where the crash of the aircraft was not an event the crew intended. A few events are deliberate (e.g. Germanwings Flight 9525), for which the word "crash" is a better word. Then there are terrorist incidents (e.g. Pan Am Flight 103, for which the word "crash" is also a better word. Mjroots ( talk) 08:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
This is related to the above discussion, but more limited in scope -- (only for U.S. military aviation articles, and *not* covering shoot-downs/hostile action). I'm suggesting that we change the name of the section on "Accident" to "Mishap" as the latter is the preferred terminology used by the DoD to describe incidents. In addition to being more accurate in a U.S. military-specific context, it also neatly avoids the above debates about "crash vs. accident" by using neither term.
See, e.g. USAF Mishap Investigation Process ("Any unintended occurrence in the Air or Space Force that results in death, injury, illness or property damage is considered a mishap and requires an investigation."); Army Mishap Classification; Navy Mishap Definitions, etc.
This would not change anything substantive other than the section title -- no change to the lists of events on any article, just to be very clear. ⇒ SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Its seems a major oversight, that there is no Production section. Sometimes this is included anyway or included as part of development, but some of the topics such as the location of production lines, total production numbers, and the end of production is not always related to development and design, and its not a part of the operational history either, which typically extends beyond the end of final production. I would suggestion including a section, perhaps before operation history or after development as an option. Obviously not all aircraft enter production, but if article are going to actually be reduced to the sections here then it seems logical to include a section on Production. A75 ( talk) 19:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing
WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Aircraft) and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Aviation: Aircraft Project‑class | ||||||||||
|
We've previously discussed adding a statement on tense to the guidelines, similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/page content#Grammatical tense, but never followed through. Are there any objections to adding that now? - BilCat ( talk) 06:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
A bit late to the party, but I lean towards the past tense. Rather than the above hypothetical dialogue around a privately-owned F-86, which indeed sounds surreal, a more meaningful situation to consider would be, e.g. your child asking you "Dad, what's a spitfire?" Would you word your answer in the present tense? I wouldn't. If the Spitfire can be described essentially as a WWII fighter, the examples still flying today no longer meaningful exist as fighters, which is what I read in WP:MOSTENSE as meaning that the past tense should be used. If a child (or a layperson) opens the article and reads the first line "The Supermarine Spitfire is a British single-seat fighter aircraft", they will be forgiven for wondering if the Spitfire is still patrolling the skies today! -- Deeday-UK ( talk) 09:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Following on a discussion on the main aircraft project page I would like to propose the following changes to this suggested guideline:
Thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 07:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Nobody else seems to have a strong view so I will change:
If there is no major objections I will make the change, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 14:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Now I've been away for a while and probably out of touch with changes of policy etc but could someone explain why we're changing things now. They'd hadn't been a problem as I understood it up til now. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 18:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Where should these links go in aircraft articles? Sometimes a given type may be included in several list articles. There is a move to stop adding them to the "See also" section (see above topic). A templated "List of lists" navbox seems an overly rigid and clumsy solution - we have enough clutter down there as it is. Should we stop adding links to list articles anyway, if they are not appropriate in the main article content? For example in the Lockheed Hercules article is a link to Military transport aircraft sufficient and we can just leave out any link to the List of military transport aircraft? To be honest, I think I prefer this last approach and see how it goes. If a good, consensual home appears then we can revisit. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 16:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Yet another tweak after reading comments:
Variants - This section describes major subtypes or variants of the aircraft. These can be arranged in subsections - see Messerschmitt Me 163 for an example of how this can be done. Related developments by the same company or major modifications by others can also be listed. See also - This section contains links to related articles or lists not already linked in the article including similar aircraft. Add an explanation why the link would help the reader. The use of the Template:Aircontent is deprecated.
MilborneOne ( talk) 14:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Recent and ongoing changes to this style guide are being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#Style guide and in various subsections of that thread. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 10:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest discontinuing the use of svg maps to show operators and adopt {{
Maplink}}
instead. This would be easier to edit and update, while also adding a nicer map interface, which can be zoomed and panned.
The SA 330 page contains a Maplink map, instead of an SVG.
What do you think?
Alex Roșu 11:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandru.rosu ( talk • contribs)
The style guide [1] states that lists of variants should only include major variants. How "major" is this, or do all variants count? Thank you for your help. CohenTheBohemian ( talk) 04:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Instead of using the title word 'development', the more appropriate words would be Creation or History. Emirthesenat ( talk) 20:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm tired of using the word "accident" regarding transportation system fatalities. It's a loaded, political word used to dismiss deaths and injury as unavoidable and/or unpredictable. We need to stop using the word "accident" throughout Wikipedia regarding transportation deaths. It's already being phased out in news publishing best practices.
Changes are being made to this section without prior discussion here. I seem to recall a recent discussion elsewhere, but there was no clear consensus to change this guideline. So maybe we need to clear the air a little here.
Firstly, one can never foresee every circumstance, so the less prescriptive we are the better. For example I do not think we should mandate the use of Template:Convert, it is there to serve us not to bind us. Second, this template does have provision for departing from its default format, and it has that facility for a reason. We should not insist either on the default or on a different format. In particular, when a source states "miles" or "mph" it may mean statute or nautical (nm, knots) miles and speeds. Primary sources often targeted a particular market, and everybody concerned knew which they meant. Secondary and tertiary sources sometimes make the wrong assumption and, without the primary source and knowledge of its market for comparison, there is no way of knowing. For this WikiProject to try and prescribe a way through this kind of mess would be hopeless.
However I do believe that we should give the units published by the manufacturer. This may need to be qualified as in, say, "X claimed but [source Y] gives Z as the true figure", or some care over rounding errors for unit conversions. This is much as the guideline currently states. However, since the Convert template does have some provision for fine-tuning rounding issues, I would delete "If not," from "If the original source does include multiple units, the original numbers should be used to avoid adding rounding errors. If not, units can be converted using the {{Convert}} template." and say something like, "Units may often be converted..."
— Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 07:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Let's discuss the use of the word "accident" when referring to airplane crashes. I changed a few instances of the word "accident" to "crash" at Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit. User:Fnlayson reverted my changes citing "more formal wording," so I opened a discussion at the talk page for the article, and they helpfully pointed me to this style guide. As I pointed out at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 14#"Accident", the term "accident" has fallen largely out of favor in reliable sources. Even in the body of the section I edited, the words had been used interchangeably prior to my edits being reverted. Further reading below, and I'm curious to hear thoughts on the subject. I acknowledge the importance of adhering to standards. Favoring "crash" instead of "accident" reflects the current language standards and avoids potential ambiguity, especially when lives (and billions of dollars) are at stake. Dreameditsbrooklyn ( talk) 00:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Dreameditsbrooklyn ( talk) 00:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
I think the key here is intent. Most events are accidents (e.g. BEA Flight 548), where the crash of the aircraft was not an event the crew intended. A few events are deliberate (e.g. Germanwings Flight 9525), for which the word "crash" is a better word. Then there are terrorist incidents (e.g. Pan Am Flight 103, for which the word "crash" is also a better word. Mjroots ( talk) 08:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
This is related to the above discussion, but more limited in scope -- (only for U.S. military aviation articles, and *not* covering shoot-downs/hostile action). I'm suggesting that we change the name of the section on "Accident" to "Mishap" as the latter is the preferred terminology used by the DoD to describe incidents. In addition to being more accurate in a U.S. military-specific context, it also neatly avoids the above debates about "crash vs. accident" by using neither term.
See, e.g. USAF Mishap Investigation Process ("Any unintended occurrence in the Air or Space Force that results in death, injury, illness or property damage is considered a mishap and requires an investigation."); Army Mishap Classification; Navy Mishap Definitions, etc.
This would not change anything substantive other than the section title -- no change to the lists of events on any article, just to be very clear. ⇒ SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Its seems a major oversight, that there is no Production section. Sometimes this is included anyway or included as part of development, but some of the topics such as the location of production lines, total production numbers, and the end of production is not always related to development and design, and its not a part of the operational history either, which typically extends beyond the end of final production. I would suggestion including a section, perhaps before operation history or after development as an option. Obviously not all aircraft enter production, but if article are going to actually be reduced to the sections here then it seems logical to include a section on Production. A75 ( talk) 19:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)