Template talk:Giant aircraft
|WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft||(Rated Template-class)|
If there is a runt in this litter, it is definitely the Brabazon. Or is my understanding of its size as compared to the rest incorrect? For reference, a 777 is bigger in most dimensions, and close in the rest, and it is not lumped in with this group. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- ah, but what is the definition for inclusion, there isn't one specificied so i went with the fact that of its time it was a giant aircraft (like the Sikorsky Ilya Muromets) was of its time.GraemeLeggett 16:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
It's sort of a loose definition, and I figured that was the reason you included it. I personally vote for including aircraft that are contemporarily considered giants. Otherwise we are basically listing size records in sequential chronological order. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Is it worth putting the decade after each entry so that the historic context can be considered? And on a related note - can the template take the big flying boats eg Princess. GraemeLeggett 16:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, giant is a highly generalized term. There must be certain accurate technical specifications to qualify certain aircrafts under the category "giant".
I would suggest we could have certain minimum floor space for passenger aircrafts and minimum load capacity for freighters, to be specified to the category.
This template is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Giant_aircraft. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)