Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Categories

message: On the military side, I think we've over-categorized.
IMO, we should restrict it to Fighter, Ground attack, Strategic bomber and Support.
The support category would essentially include all military aircraft that are not included in the other categories.  This would include transport, trainers, recon, electronic warefare etc.  The Category Information Section (CIS) would detail which aircraft served which purpose.
The support category could include sub-categories if there are enough of that type of craft to merit one.
There would also be a higher level category for recon, trainers etc..  This would mean that many aircraft would have several categories (ex. NATION support aircraft (19xx-19xx), NATION recon aircraft, Recon aircraft (19xx-19xx)), but each of them would be substationally more filled out.  The would obviously be negated if there are enough in NATION recon aircraft (19xx-19xx)
Ground attack would include tactical bombers and other light aircraft designed to take out specific land-based targets.
Fighter-bombers would be categorized under fighters (again, with the CIS pointing them out) and mentioned in the ground attack category if they were used heavily in that role.  The CIS would also indicate which are night fighters, long range escort fighters etc.
We would use the primary role that the aircraft filled as it's basis of categorization, and, in the case of multi-role craft, list it on the CIS of the other categories (ie. The De_Havilland_Mosquito would be categorized as a Strategic bomber, but be mentioned under the Fighter and Support categories.) Oberiko 14:27, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: On the military side, have we over-categorized?

message: With the passage of the Sport Pilot rules in the US, there should be an additional category of Light Sport Aircraft as they are legally a new category of aircraft.
Also, there should be some kind of reconciliation of LSA in the US vs. Ultralight/Microlight in the rest of the world. Mcneight 02:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Category(s) for Civil Aircraft 

message: I am currently working on a category overhaul.  Redundant categories may be nominated for category deletion.  The goal of this project is to make it fairly easy to categorise aircraft and be able to go to the WP:AIRCRAFT category page to find what categories are needed for a given article.  Any help with this would be appreciated!  Thanks.  Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're overdoing it a bit on the "Airplane Specific" (should be "Airplane-specific"?) categories. For "power sources", are people really interested in tracking — and maintaining — "Multiple engine aircraft" (should be "Multi-engine[d] aircraft"?) and "Single engine aircraft" (should be "Single-engine[d] aircraft"?)? On the other hand, I could see adding "Rocket aircraft" to this list and perhaps "Ramjet aircraft" or eventually "Hypersonic aircraft" should they employ novel propulsion technologies. Similarly, I see little likely interest in the "wing type" categories. If it is to be used, then "High-wing aircraft" and "Low-wing aircraft" need to be supplemented by "Mid-wing aircraft" and perhaps even "Canard-wing-coupled aircraft". If we have a category for "Biplane aircraft", shouldn't there also be one for "Monoplane aircraft" and "Triplane aircraft" — or perhaps the bipes and tripes combined into "Multi-wing aircraft"? I'd be interested in seeing what others have to say. Askari Mark | Talk 18:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Karl was working on a revamp at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Categories/Proposed update, but that seems to have become dormant for a few months. Myself, I think it should all be pared down to the basic: Multi/single engine, jet/prop/turboprop, military/commercial aircraft, and a few other basic divisions. The "by year" categories serve very limited roles and should be dropped. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict)Those are good points. I think there is a point when it gets to far. I.E, aircraft with 4 engines, aircraft with 6 engines. However, in categorization of airplanes, at least in my opninion and from what I know, there is a major difference between single and multiple engine aircraft. It is really 2 major categories of aircraft. Similar to that of high and low wing. I also would be interested to get others feedback on this. I had not seen much activity on this page recently so i started working on it. I am very willing for more feedback on this though before I continue this. I guess an important question to ask, is how far is too far? At what point is a category of aircraft not realy important enough or even large enough to have its own category. - Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: oh, yea, the date thing is insane.  I copied them to the page and then stepped back and looked at it and realized that it was insane.  I think the many many date specific categories should go.  When you look at an airplane, you may pay attention to the year but more imporant is the type(single engine, multi engine, high, low wing).  If any of these assumotions are wrong, feel free to correct me!  - Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe the "date" categories were intended to permit tracking and listing aircraft by "eras", based on the year of first flight (or service entry?). There is a huge page tracking these, with aircraft of a given era all listed vertically in the same column: List of aircraft by date and usage category. Askari Mark | Talk 21:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I find it funny how you are debating the restriction of types despite them being a historical reality. Are you proposing rewriting history? Part of the confusion is that most entries are missing explanation of performance specs for aircraft, so it is hard to say what they were. For example most early WW2 British fighters were build as interceptors so were not readily compatible with the US-built long range escort fighters. Also many Soviet tactical fighters were low-altitude dogfighters , but are often compared to high-altitude escorts. Same thing happens to bombers because entries do not explain why a particular aircraft was designated a fighter-bomber, usually because it had excellent short range tactical performance for the given payload. And that is another thing, Armament in the aerocraft specifications infobox means any armament included in the airframe, and not any ordnance carried by the aerocraft. The combat load is called payload and not 'bombs', and they are not a part of armament since the payload can vary significantly. I guess if anything I would like to see the classification expanded to include all the sub-classes of 'fighter' and 'bomber' but with an explanation included to give the reader an idea how the aerocraft was decided to be one. Many variants of the original were often later used or converted to alternative classifications anyway as their performance changed either due to change in requirements or capability of opposition.--Mrg3105 13:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category Overhaul 

message: Why missiles? How do missiles fall under the Aircraft Wikiproject? Understand my questioning-I am new to Wikiproject Aircraft. But I must know why cruise missiles is listed as a catagory.
I also agree with many members above. In my opinion, the sub categories should be organized in a chronological fashion-beginning from the earliest flying machine available to modern aircraft. ChockStock 05:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my proposed update to the scheme, I have moved Cruise missiles to :Category:Rockets and missiles.  In short, this issue will be rectified.  Karl Dickman talk 23:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missiles

message: I came across an orphaned aviation-related article, Aviation ground support equipment. Do we need to add a category for such equipment? Askari Mark (Talk) 23:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aviation equipment category? 

message: Would someone more au fait with creating categories please have a look at "Category:Triplane aircraft"? I'm afraid I just jumped in and (tried to?) create this category, without (a) checking whether this had already been proposed and rejected and (b) asking for help! In its present state is shows the Felixstowe Fury, for which I created it, and one other - so it seems to 'work' - but it still shows up red. Before any more aircraft are added to this category it needs to be right. Help! And thanks in advance. --TraceyR (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You actually need to go to the new category and save it which I have done for you, whether we need it or not is a different point! It can do no harm. MilborneOne (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Triplane aircraft 

message: I suggest that it would be useful to create, under "Seaplanes and flying boats", the subcategory "Amphibious aircraft". There are several amphibious aircraft, some of which are mentioned in the article of the same name, but there is no easy way of finding them and others. A category would provide this route. Pros and cons? Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amphibious aircraft 

message: Please join the discussion in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Glider_category, which turned into a rather generic issue. - Altenmann >t 20:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further refinement of the categorization guidelines 

message: A Turboprop section should be added tot he business aircraft as the king air, pilatus, piaggio and other notable aircraft are not included as business aircraft and do not sit in the correct categories.  any thoughts?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slickh20 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No reason why the Business aircraft categories can not be used for non-jets in fact a quick look at :Category:Business aircraft shows a few non-jet aircraft already for example the Grumman Gulfstream I. The reason why it not appropriate for aircraft like the King Air is nothing to do with not being a jet but more to do with the purpose of the original design so it sits in the civil utility category. Very few aircraft are designed as business aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turbo Prop section for Business aircraft 

message: I was reviewing :Category:United States agricultural aircraft and its five subcategories (each one being a decade's worth of aircraft).   I all of the subcategories, there are only a total of twenty (20) aircraft listing.   I suggest that it would make more sense to delete the subcategories and put those 20 articles in the main category.  Feedback?  --rogerd (talk) 01:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There probably just aren't enough different types of US ag planes to make having each decade a separate category. Plus most were designed in the 1950s or 1960s alone. I think it was done this way to match the other larger categories. - Ahunt (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The sub-categories are all the same for these aircraft categories and are designed to be looked at across decades. One solution would be to have a new :Category:Agricultural aircraft category as a global role category and then also put them all in the :Category:Foo civil utility aircraft 1950-1959 type cats to retain the decades. MilborneOne (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that :Category:Agricultural aircraft already exists and is also sparsely populated.  There just aren't enough ag aircraft to fill up multiple categories.  --rogerd (talk) 02:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:United States agricultural aircraft and subcategories 

message: The "Primary categorisation" section of this article uses "Category:British fighter aircraft 1930-1939" as an example, but the tree shown in the example doesn't match the actual tree as it currently exists.  For example the category is (redundantly) under "Category:British aircraft 1930-1939".  The example says "Fighter aircraft (as above)", but it's not shown above.  Could someone with more knowledge of categories than me take a look at it ? DexDor (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Now fixed. DexDor (talk) 05:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example is incorrect or out of date 

message: WP:AIR/C#Era currently says "Aircraft projects that were cancelled without ever flying are categorised by the year the project was terminated or abandoned (ie, the closest that they got to a first flight.)".  The discussion above and the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Role_cats (July 2013) indicate that some editors think this should be changed (perhaps replaced by a reference to :Category:Cancelled aircraft projects). On the other hand, it would make for a somewhat simpler category system if we instead deleted (listified?) the cancelled/abandoned categories and kept #Era as it has been since 2004. Also the current cancelled/abandoned categories blur the line between articles about aircraft types and articles about projects/programs (e.g. the articles under :Category:Military aircraft procurement programs). DexDor (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The aircraft procurement programs cat should be for projects like FSTA (British Tanker aircraft) or JPATS (American trainer) not for the actually aircraft. Have you an example of what you think the cancelled/abandoned category system would look like ? MilborneOne (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion is to delete the whole :Category:Cancelled aircraft projects tree - having ensured that each article currently in it is categorized under either a normal country-type-decade cat (for articles such as BAC TSR-2), a procurement programs cat (for articles such as Amerika Bomber) or both.  I.e. cut down from 3 category trees (projects/aircraft/programs) to 2 category trees (aircraft/programs). Alternatively, WP:AIR/C#Secondary_categorisation should be changed to refer to :Category:Cancelled aircraft projects. DexDor (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: OK that might work, but I dont think we should use the Foo aircraft 19XX-19XX decade categories for aircraft that didnt actually fly. MilborneOne (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO it makes sense to categorize a type like AD Scout alongside similar aircraft (i.e. in :Category:British fighter aircraft 1910–1919). From my sampling it looks like most abandoned types are already in such a category. However, if the consensus is not to categorize like that then WP:AIR/C#Era should be changed (and the cancelled/abandoned categories kept). DexDor (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancelled aircraft - by decade ? 

message: There's a discussion at Category_talk:Military_aircraft_of_World_War_II#Proposal_to_tighten_up_inclusion_criteria. DexDor (talk) 12:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Military aircraft of World War II]] 

message: Several categories containing articles about aircraft types (categories not currently mentioned in WP:AIR/C) are under discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_6#Category:Torpedo_bombers. DexDor (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion at CFD about categorization by role