Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Aircraft)

message: 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)
replies: text: I think one of two lists added to aircraft type articles is a good thing, but if we are not going to put them in "see also" I really don't know where would work. - Ahunt (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, links to list articles are a common feature of See Also sections in many Wikipedia articles, and I don't think we can put that jinn back in the bottle, at least not at the project level. That said, I am for recommending that we (WPAIR) limit them to 1 or 2 links. - BilCat (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

text: No objections after a week so I have added the changes to the guide. MilborneOne (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to list articles 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: I'd like to suggest discontinuing the use of svg maps to show operators and adopt  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)
thread_title:  New Operators Map Style via Maplink 

message: The style guide  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)
replies: text: The Boeing 737-800 Series is a major variant. The 737-832 is not.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: We normally rely on reliable sources to establish that. - Ahunt (talk) 13:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you both for your replies! CohenTheBohemian (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Major" variants 

message: Instead of using the title word 'development', the more appropriate words would be Creation or History. Emirthesenat (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Aircraft are not "created", they are "developed", and "history" would conflict with "operational history". - Ahunt (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. This is standard English language usage. BilCat (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

text: Agreed. "Creation" can surely only be suggested by someone entirely ignorant of English-language aviation literature. And there is no point in writing "Development history" when the first word says it all on its own. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2022 

message: 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)
replies: text: It may be worth noting the US military terminology at Aviation accidents and incidents#Definitions as well. 73.223.72.200 (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Though on second look, the USAF link seems to say that "mishap" encompasses occurrences outside of aircraft operation (e.g. "ankle sprain at work"), which makes it less specific. 73.223.72.200 (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Changing "Accident" to "Mishap" on US Military Aviation articles 

message: 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)
thread_title: Production?