Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Categories/Proposed update

message: Don't forget Rotorcraft, which includes autogyros and helicopters. Autogyros are typically a smaller subset of rotorcraft, but fiercely defended as being rotorcraft and not merely helicopters. The FAA and ICAO treat them as a different aircraft type and the U.S. military follows that lead by defining any helicopter by aircraft type first and then by military mission. This creates some duplication of mission sets, having both fixed-wing aircraft and rotorcraft with a similar mission treated seperately (attack aircraft and attack helicopters), but I feel the type of the aircraft justifies this duplication of effort.
:Yes, I noticed this when I was looking through :Category:Aircraft.  Many of the cats listed there need to be covered by this new system.  I'll be working on finalising my proposal over the next few days.  Thanks for your comments, Ingoolemo talk 19:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Helicopters

message: # "International aircraft" are more appropriately and commonly referred to as "Multinational aircraft". The term derives from the fact that the consortia producing them (e.g., SEPECAT, Airbus, etc.) are "multinational"; "international" suggests that anybody and everybody can produce them. The affected categories would be renamed ":Category:Multinational aircraft" and "Category:Multinationally produced ".
# Most modern search and rescue (SAR) aircraft are indeed modified transports. The Saudis even have flying hospital versions of C-130s and the C-9A Nightingale was certainly a noteworthy transport conversion for medevac. Very few bombers were ever so converted. (The PBY Catalinas, BTW, were more of an ASW patrol aircraft than a bomber, per se.) I have no problem with the suggestion of treating them as "special-purpose aircraft" — since many of these are also specially converted aircraft — but some thought needs to be given to this. Should AC-130s, DC-130s, EC-130s, HC-130s, MC-130s, NC-130s, and so on be treated as "special-purpose aircraft" ... perhaps with their own article(s)?
# While "There is no such thing as an ASW aircraft that isn't a patrol aircraft," there are patrol aircraft that aren't ASW aircraft. The term was also employed for a brief while for certain fighters.
# I still feel very uncomfortable with aircraft like the CF-18 and C-7 Caribou being listed as "Canadian" and "US", respectively. These are variants and probably shouldn't be separate articles from the F/A-18 Hornet and de Havilland Canada DHC-4 Caribou and differ more in where they were built than in design and equipment. (There's a much bigger difference between the BAe Harrier and Boeing-BAe Harrier II.) Separating them begs for a lot of future confusion and a proliferation of articles on minor variants. For instance, should the Korean KF-16 be treated separately? Then what about the Turkish-built F-16s (which don't have a special designation)? The F-5 would lead to the CF-116/VF-5, NF-5, SF/SRF-5, and possibly signficantly modified aircraft like the RF-5 Tigereye, F-5EM/FM, F-5S/T, and so on.  I much prefer the approach of going with 1) the nation of the designer/manufacturer and 2) if primarily license-manufactured by a foreign customer with little or no domestic use, then that nation.
# I have no problem with post-1991 Learjets being given as Canadian, but then the name should be modified to reflect this: "Learjet" up until 1991 and "Bombardier Learjet" from 1991 on.
# As for the P-26 Peashooter sorting as "Boeing P-26" or "P-26 Peashooter" in different cases, I frankly think the article names should have included the manufacturer in the first place: Boeing P-26 Peashooter. While I doubt this third option would be a popular one, it would certainly put the US aircraft into the same format used for most of the rest of the world's aircraft. 
I hope these thoughts are helpful. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 05:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would seem that we essentially agree on 2, 3, and 4.  Regarding 5: are you proposing that the page Learjet be moved to Bombardier Learjet, that all Learjet aircraft since '91 have their titles changed from [[Learjet <model>]] to [[Bombardier Learjet <model>]], or both.  This issue, and the whole definition of special-purpose aircraft, should probably be taken to WT:AIR.  6 remains a thorny technical issue.  Perhaps if we requested all the aircraft people to vote for bug 491, that would help get it resolved sooner.  Karl Dickman talk 19:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Update: I have now implemented your suggestions 2, 3, and 4.  I had to repeal the change that led to complaint 4, but I felt that it was a matter that was specific enough to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis rather than right here, right now.  I doubt that such situations occur frequently enough to warrant mention on this page.  Karl Dickman talk 04:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some (belated) comments