Talk:List of regional airliners

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.


comment[edit]

I recommend doing away with the post-1978/post-1990 distinction, and the 360 knot comment, for the following reasons:

1. As far as I can tell, there was no regulatory or particular market event which makes the "post-1990" subdivision relevant, nor is any explanation given.

2. It is not clear from the article whether the "post-1978" and "post-1990" criteria refer to aircraft developed after these dates, aircraft delivered after these dates, aircraft in service after these dates, or some altogether different criterion.

3. There doesn't seem to be any rational assignment of aircraft between the "post-1978" and "post-1990" categories, some older or less modern aircraft being assigned to the later category, and newer aircraft assigned to the older category.

4. The "360 knot" comment doesn't appear to offer any important information.

Mikepurves (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I would welcome your suggestions and improvements. Any additions and discussion about them is definitely a good thing. E_dog95' Hi ' 23:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Which aircraft to include?[edit]

I've almost been having an edit war with myself over this, so let's try to build a consensus. Should the following small/medium sized jet airliners be included as "regional" airliners?

I'm leaning towards "no" because they were not used to link isolated communities to hubs, but rather as standard airliners on scheduled city-to-city routes. Kbog (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

of course they are NOT regional airliners. Historically they were operated by big four, mainline, flag and legacy carriers in many instances. --172.58.40.109 (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Mainline is an artificial US definition. I'm not sure the major carriers ever used Tupolevs. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
The F28 is included. The caravelle could be, the 1-11 is a bit larger but still. The Tupolevs are below 100 seats and could too. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Technoavia Rysachok[edit]

Should the Technoavia Rysachok be included in this list? Redalert2fan (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Nothing in the related article indicates it would be used as a commercial airliner and no evidence it has gone into service with anybody, so I would leave it out for now. MilborneOne (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Move pics away from gallery[edit]

I'm not sure what the Wiki policy is on pics in galleries. But why not move the images back up to be beside the tables, the way it was before? There's empty space that's not being utilized. K.Bog 02:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

And what's up with removing all the country images? I leave this article for a few years and suddenly it gets all ugly and grey! K.Bog 02:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

It was Steelpillow's 23 September 2015 edit : cleanup tables per WP:AVLIST. I agree the result isn't great, it was better before. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Generally we dont have "galleries" in articles as we use commons for images, and there was a consensus somewhere to not have images inside these sort of tables. I dont see why the images cant be moved to be near the relevant tables which doesnt break the rules. MilborneOne (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh, by "country images" I meant the flags. K.Bog 06:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I removed the photo galleries --Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussions on WP:AVLIST just said that (a) image galleries or images displacing tables are bad and (b) images within the tables are bad. On this article they were just taking up empty space. So it looks no one ever gave any justification for not having pictures in that form. The reason pics are relevant is that not everyone is familiar with the class of regional airliners. Most people never fly on them and they're not commonly in the news, etc like normal airliners. So it's helpful to give examples of what they look like. K.Bog 18:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

illustrations[edit]

I removed the An-140, An-158 and SSJ100 because they aren't widespread and their pictures were pushing each other below the associated table. User:Bengleman replaced them. While having 1 example per table, e.g. the most widespread type in the category, (1 two-abreast aircraft, 1 3-abreast and so on) is nice to have a grasp of an aircraft class typical size, having more than 1 should be reserved to when there is another almost as widespread other type, and not to include too much pictures, and only when the tables are long enough to have more than 1 pictures along. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

However, when we are including Evektor EV-55's and the Mitsubishi Regional Jet, which haven't even reached production yet, I must reiterate that we are demonstrating a western bias toward aircraft that are EASA and FAA. "Widespread", here, is certainly being used as a fluid term, especially when we consider that the available online data for production of the Russian aircraft is far from current (some of those figures are approaching a decade old). When it comes to the role of regional airliners, all of these deserve mention. For someone who is researching regional airliners, knowing about those in development and about to reach production, AS WELL as those which are used in parts of the world we personally don't inhabit, is relevant information. In relative terms (given the region which it serves), the AN-140 is widespread! This kind of qualifying language, which is not specifically defined, can't be used as the basis for exclusion. It just doesn't follow. And, to be clear, it was their removal from the tables that I objected to. Given how sparse the included aircraft models are, there is no need to save space on this basis. In the Ukraine, Iran, and a few other countries, Antonov aircraft are serving the regional routes more often than you seem to believe. To a person in these areas, the claim that they are not widespread would seem strange at the very least. Mister Sparkle (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The point is to not have too much pictures as to disturb the page flow. You are welcome to complete the tables. I'm not trying to establish what number is widespread, only to seek the most widespread in each category : relative, not absolute. there is 1 AN-140 in service, at its engine manufacturer. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)