Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 11

message: Must be a cold day in hell today but I really like Infobox Aircraft in its current state and I will support it. If adopted, I will include it in my AWB task-o-rama (very straightforward, actually, although as always a tad labor-intensive). Shall we do a WP:Air consensus? - Emt147 Burninate! 17:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Captions are optional. If left blank, nothing will show. I agree, a redundant caption is not necessary but almost always there is something to be said, like identifying the airline/military service, variant, etc. - Emt147 Burninate! 05:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Aircraft 

message: What guidelines to we want to adopt for the "Primary user" parameter in the infobox? Current user? Most numerous user? E.g. The biggest user for the F-4 Phantom II was USAF but they retired the type 10 years ago while it's still flying with Luftwaffe. Who is the primary user? What about civilian airlines? - Emt147 Burninate! 17:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say largest current user(s), with a maximum of maybe four, listed on separate lines (much like  does with 'key people' or 'products'. This would keep it reasonable while being decently informative. Which is, after all, what it's for. I personally hate those giant lists of users that most articles have, and I pawn them off into "List of operators of..." every chance I get. This would give some information without readers needing to open another page. ericg ✈ 18:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: So tell me this: What would be the entry for Boeing 777 or Boeing 747? Just nitpicking. --Mmx1 18:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, British Airways and JAL are almost certainly the largest 747 operators in the world, but I would probably leave the field blank for both aircraft. Just because it's there doesn't mean it needs to be used; I mean, it's not like Cessna 172 qualifies for the field either. Once you get too many users, it's simply not a logical thing to have. ericg ✈ 18:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree on listing a select handful of primary users. Like Mmx1 said, airliners are a problem. What I expect to happen is edit wars because someone's favorite airline or nation is not in that list. A written consensus on the WP:Air MoS page would be helpful. - Emt147 Burninate! 18:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A written consensus sounds good. I was aware of JAL but not of BA. --Mmx1 18:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary user parameter

message: This topic is for reaching consensus on adopting (or not adopting) Template:Infobox aircraft in its 22 April 2006 19:05 UTC revision, as demonstrated on the F-117 Nighthawk page, for general use within WikiProject Aircraft. - Emt147 Burninate! 17:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wingspan is a very minor stat. The important ones like speed and range are highly variable and subject to fancruft. The infobox would also tell you when they first flew and that they are comparable aircraft as they're of the same type. --Mmx1 18:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because aircraft operate over a wide performance envelope, dimensions and numbers like top speed have little utility in comparisons because they oversimplify the picture and ignore the significant nuances of performance. Aerodynamic parameters (zero-lift drag coefficient and drag area, lift-to-drag ratio, airfoil profiles) are far more useful but limited in availability and potentially difficult to comprehend. Of the commonly listed specifications, the most useful ones are wing loading and power/mass or thrust/weight ratio although again these oversimplify the big picture. For civilian aircraft, parameters such as payload-to-gross weight ratio can be helpful. - Emt147 Burninate! 18:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention, it also is difficult to keep track of changes to a model over the course of its lifespan, which can alter such statistics vastly. Which ones would go in the template, the original design? The one currently in service? The one that had the most made? Its way too subjective, and the proposed template is clean and to the point where the article itself can discuss such statistics as applicable. -Dawson 19:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC in the past we've tossed around an idea of creating comparison pages, e.g. "Comparison of early World War 2 fighters" that would run side-by-side specs for Spit Vb, Bf 109E, A6M-2, P-40E, etc. Easy to do but care needs to be taken to avoid original research. - Emt147 Burninate! 19:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The dimensions of the plane are basic specs and as such tell the reader more about the plane than the name of some guy who was a lead designer - or company's name. But of course, the wingspan could change in time (mostly due to wear and accidents), while the name of the company is fixed and never changes, so you're right. An ideal infobox should inform the reader that Boeing 767 was designed by Boeing design bureau, is produced by Boeing company and that there is no primary user. How informative. Anyway, if it really is a choice between obvious or unimportant data - or no infobox at all, I'd rather stay with my vote, may I? Thank you. //Halibutt 18:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what exactly do the dimensions tell you? They are static and give no indication whatsoever of performance or capabilities. - Emt147 Burninate! 02:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And what do you think? They tell me whether the plane was big or small, wide or narrow. Such a basic set of data, found in almost every article on every historical piece of war machinery from planes to tanks and from trucks to handguns tell pretty all a non-specialized reader would like to know. Such basic data tell me whether the PZL.37B was faster than He.111, whether I-115 had a max ceiling high enough to down a B-17 or whether the Me Comet was faster than F-117. //Halibutt
Aaand all of that information is available in plain sight just a pagedown away and not crammed into a tiny box on the right side of the screen. As noted below, the infobox is working out great for dates and production numbers because they are buried in the text. Specs are not. If you don't think the specs will be crammed, make a tidy 250 pixel-wide infobox containing the specs for something like F-4 Phantom II and keep it from being 15 screens long. - Emt147 Burninate! 01:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Aicraft consensus discussion 

message: # Support - Ericg and AzaToth did a superb job adopting the infobox to group's wishes. - Emt147 Burninate! 17:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support 

message: # Oppose. Sorry to say so, but it would be a waste of space IMO. Perhaps it's my own experience only, but when I compare infoboxes on military equipment, I usually look for some basic specifications, some hard facts. Wingspan, power, length, anything that makes me feel the difference in one glimpse. On the other hand most of the data that could be put in that template tells absolutely nothing about differences between similar planes. While comparing, say, Airbus A310 with Boeing 767 I would expect to see a mention of the fact that the wingspan of the earlier is 47.6 m, while the latter has 43.9. However, your template would tell me only what is usually already obvious from the plane's name: that the earlier was made by... Airbus, while the latter by Boeing. That's definitely not what Infoboxes are for. //Halibutt 18:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wingspan is a very minor stat. The important ones like speed and range are highly variable and subject to fancruft. The infobox would also tell you when they first flew and that they are comparable aircraft as they're of the same type. --Mmx1 18:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because aircraft operate over a wide performance envelope, dimensions and numbers like top speed have little utility in comparisons because they oversimplify the picture and ignore the significant nuances of performance. Aerodynamic parameters (zero-lift drag coefficient and drag area, lift-to-drag ratio, airfoil profiles) are far more useful but limited in availability and potentially difficult to comprehend. Of the commonly listed specifications, the most useful ones are wing loading and power/mass or thrust/weight ratio although again these oversimplify the big picture. For civilian aircraft, parameters such as payload-to-gross weight ratio can be helpful. - Emt147 Burninate! 18:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention, it also is difficult to keep track of changes to a model over the course of its lifespan, which can alter such statistics vastly. Which ones would go in the template, the original design? The one currently in service? The one that had the most made? Its way too subjective, and the proposed template is clean and to the point where the article itself can discuss such statistics as applicable. -Dawson 19:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC in the past we've tossed around an idea of creating comparison pages, e.g. "Comparison of early World War 2 fighters" that would run side-by-side specs for Spit Vb, Bf 109E, A6M-2, P-40E, etc. Easy to do but care needs to be taken to avoid original research. - Emt147 Burninate! 19:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The dimensions of the plane are basic specs and as such tell the reader more about the plane than the name of some guy who was a lead designer - or company's name. But of course, the wingspan could change in time (mostly due to wear and accidents), while the name of the company is fixed and never changes, so you're right. An ideal infobox should inform the reader that Boeing 767 was designed by Boeing design bureau, is produced by Boeing company and that there is no primary user. How informative. Anyway, if it really is a choice between obvious or unimportant data - or no infobox at all, I'd rather stay with my vote, may I? Thank you. //Halibutt 18:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what exactly do the dimensions tell you? They are static and give no indication whatsoever of performance or capabilities. - Emt147 Burninate! 02:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And what do you think? They tell me whether the plane was big or small, wide or narrow. Such a basic set of data, found in almost every article on every historical piece of war machinery from planes to tanks and from trucks to handguns tell pretty all a non-specialized reader would like to know. Such basic data tell me whether the PZL.37B was faster than He.111, whether I-115 had a max ceiling high enough to down a B-17 or whether the Me Comet was faster than F-117. //Halibutt
Aaand all of that information is available in plain sight just a pagedown away and not crammed into a tiny box on the right side of the screen. As noted below, the infobox is working out great for dates and production numbers because they are buried in the text. Specs are not. If you don't think the specs will be crammed, make a tidy 250 pixel-wide infobox containing the specs for something like F-4 Phantom II and keep it from being 15 screens long. - Emt147 Burninate! 01:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose 

message: Does the infobox proposal include or exclude derived values? Calculating them seems like original research. bobblewik 18:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It excludes values other than 'number built' and 'unit cost'. That's it. ericg ✈ 18:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No specs in the infobox. Wing and power loading in the inline specs are derived but it's elementary math, not original research. - Emt147 Burninate! 02:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Derived values 

message: Since it is inactive, and to some degree or another within our area of expertise, I propose that we annex Wikipedia:WikiProject Launch Vehicles (may redlink due to incorrect capitalisation).  Does anyone support this, and does anyone have any ideas about what exactly 'annexation' means.  (Annexation is not an official Wikipedia process; it's a term I made up.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingoolemo (talk • contribs) 
:Annexation means redirecting or merging the other project's page to your own ;-)  (It's usually best to get the assent of the other project, but this is sometimes impossible if all the members are inactive.) Kirill Lokshin 23:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And so our humble empire shall grow and thrive. It's fairly aviation-related so I support it. - Emt147 Burninate! 23:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not even aware that there was a separate project for launch vehicles. I have been making edits to LV-related articles for a couple of years now without thinking about it. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annex a wikiproject 

message: So the infobox as it stands now is actually more useful than I thought it was going to be. First flight, service dates, and production numbers are VERY difficult to find in the majority of articles, and it is quite helpful to have that information explicitly stated somewhere. - Emt147 Burninate! 23:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing -- does the "active service" notation do us much good? Technically, the B-17 is still in service with a few operators! —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd only consider it useful if it's out of service, or if it's undergoing flight testing or certification. ericg ✈ 21:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the captions look better left-aligned and this is the standard throughout Wikipedia. - Emt147 Burninate! 23:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One last thought on the Infobox

message: If you are as tired as I am of having to revert "everybody knows x, y, z" and "so-and-so was probably this-and-that," I made a subst-able FYI template at Template:Nospeculation. The use is . - Emt147 Burninate! 07:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No speculation template 

message: This is getting old... For your subst-able pleasure. Template:Nogamecruft. - Emt147 Burninate! 21:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I softened the language a bit.  The use of the phrase 'random trivia', however appropriate, almost guarantees a nasty shouting match.  Ingoolemo talk 21:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did say "thank you" didn't I? :) - Emt147 Burninate! 21:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No gamecruft template 

message: This article is still using the old type of infobox I see, is there any more articles like this that is totally out of place?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by AzaToth (talk • contribs) 
:There are a lot of articles out there.  My off-the-cuff guess for the number of aircraft articles in Wikipedia is 2,000 to 2,500, and fewer than a thousand of them have been updated to use ; even fewer use .  Whenever you see one that hasn't been updated, add  to the article.  This tag will put it it :Category:Aircraft without proper specifications, where it will eventually be dealt with.  Ingoolemo talk 22:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Boeing E-4B]] 

message: To everybody adding infoboxes and converting specs to the template:
Please take a step back and look at the bigger picture. Getting everything updated to standards is great. It's a job that needs to be done. However: it's not a job that needs to be done immediately. The priority should be improving the article content while we update to specs. I've seen countless articles updated with the infobox already that need other attention. The S-3 Viking article, for example, was just infoboxed. It's awful. No structure, no development history, weirdly placed content, awkward intro. If you add an infobox or template the specs, please take the time to skim the rest of the article – and, if it sucks, rework it up to a higher standard of writing. There's an awful lot of English as a second language-esque crap scattered around.
It doesn't take a lot of work. I've done a very little bit (diff) so far on the S-3 article, and it took me all of five minutes. Take the time to make our encyclopedia contain quality, not just quantity and consistent visual style. ericg ✈ 04:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent point. I know you weren't talking to me specifically but I'm sorry I got carried away with the infobox thing (needed a break from contents, I guess). I'll go back and finish writing the B-57 article tomorrow. - Emt147 Burninate! 06:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  all these 'massive projects' going on 

message: Eric's post above got me thinking (uh-oh!). What do you all think about a running list of articles needing the most prompt attention/expansion/verification. I ask because left to my own devices I tend to wander into obscure Soviet and French aircraft that get one hit per year. Not a bad thing per se but perhaps somewhat misguided if something major like S-3 Viking is a mess. The criteria are entirely subjective, of course, and anyone can add anything. - Emt147 Burninate! 06:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then: (To Do table moved to the top of the page - Emt147) →AzaToth 14:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. I added S-3 Viking to the list as well as some comments. The Viking falls under an exceptionally common (as I discovered when doing infoboxes) category of pages with a lot of text but completely missing development, first flight, history, production, service, and variants. I moved the "To Do" table to the top of this page. - Emt147 Burninate! 17:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To-do article list 

message: I've just been looking over a few of the pages on the Bombardier and Embraer jets.  While they all seem to need a bit of attention, the E-Jets arcticle seems to need the most in the way of reformatting. 
I would just like oppinions on whether to split the page down into three arcticles: 170/175, 190/195, and the Lineage 1000.  If anything is to be done, at least the Lineage should have it's own page (as does the BBJ from the 737.)   
Currently the articles under the names of "Embraer 170", "Embraer 190", etc. all redirect to Embraer E-Jets, but that article does very little in the way of explaining any one of the types of jet.   I would like to hear some ideas before I start at the page for improvement.   KPWM_Spotter 23:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely agree that the Lineage should have its own page, and I'm inclined towards two other pages called Embraer 170 and Embraer 190 that could include the respective -5 stretches. The 170 and 190 series have something like 70% commonality, while the 170 and 175 are closer to 95% (if I'm remembering the article I read correctly). The Embraer E-Jets page could serve as a disambiguation page and brief summary of the project, with specific background / customers / orders / specs for each model appearing on the 170 and 190 pages. ericg ✈ 00:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: In a related vein, I just moved regional jet to regional airliner - it's a little bit improved, but some rewriting and history wouldn't be inappropriate. ericg ✈ 00:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll get on the E-Jet project.  The 170 Family page should be up by tonight.    Also, something I noticed while researching the Lineage; there is no page for the Airbus ACJ.  Should there be? --KPWM_Spotter 11:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The E-Jets are a different story, though - the 170/5 and 190/5 don't use the same wing, while the entire A318/19/20/21 series does. You might as well merge Cessna 172 with Cessna 182. ericg ✈ 12:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree'd.  The 190/95 and the 170/75 are different sets of airliners. They use different engines, different landing gear, and a seperate wing structure, as well as serving different markets. (Large RJ vs. Small Mainliner) The E-Jets are a new type of airliner, and are designed as such, so it is hard to compare them to existing aircraft.   If we call the E-Jets all the same plane, then the A330 and the A350 should be currently merged into one article under the same logic...  --KPWM_Spotter 19:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay. I think you just convinced me there.   The E-Jets page should stay as one, but with changes.
The Lineage definitly needs a seperate page, as the BBJ has.  It is a different jet, for a different purpose, with different characteistics. Simply looking at the infobox which reads "airliner", the Lineage does not fit there.   (On that note, the ACJ and the Legacy should have seperate articles, as they currently do not.)   Within the E-Jets page, there should be some sepperation between the lines of aircraft. It is currently very confusing, with everything simply thrown together in a large mass.  I will get on the cleanup of that page now, but in the meantime, I am not sure of one thing:  Should the statistics for the aircraft remain all in one template? With so many different capacities and ranges and whatnot, should there be two charts, or just one with a lot of footnotes?   --KPWM_Spotter 20:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I just preformed major surgery on the E-Jets page...Comments on the new format anyone?   (I'll get around to the Lineage page tomorrow)    --KPWM_Spotter 01:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: There were originally separate pages for all four models (170, 175, 190, 195). I merged them because almost all of the information was either duplicative or inconsistent. I am most definitely against a split. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 04:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Embraer E-Jets

message: I re-nominated F-4 Phantom II for Feature Article status. It was considerably updated, expanded, and rewritten to address all of the concerns rasied in the peer review and previous FAC, as well as to add new information. There are only two FA aircraft articles in the whole WikiProject (B-36 and F-35) -- please take a few minutes to read the article and leave your comments/support/objections on the FAC page here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/F-4 Phantom II. - Emt147 Burninate! 06:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  F-4 Phantom II feature article candidate 

message: If anyone has a few things that they just can't find anywhere else, I have access to the last forty years of Jane's All the World's Aircraft, and would be willing to look up specific numbers. -- Saaber 07:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very cool. Thanks for your help! - Emt147 Burninate! 05:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specifications and Variants 

message: FYI, you can now directly link to images from the Commons by simply using the standard image: tag. If the server doesn't find the image file locally, it will automatically check on the Commons. - Emt147 Burninate! 21:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons images 

message: Is this the same quantity as useful load?  Obviously, if a plane's landing gear will snap if it tries to land at its theoretical MTOW, then it can't be usefully loaded past the maximum landing weight.  Ingoolemo talk 02:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, useful load is ‘the difference between a vehicle’s gross and dry weight’. ericg ✈ 04:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is why many aircraft are fitted with systems to dump fuel -- as the recent JetBlue incident demonstrated, an emergency landing immediately after takeoff requires either dumping of the fuel or flying around for hours with everything hanging out to burn it off to reach the landing weight. - Emt147 Burninate! 04:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maximum landing weight