Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Categories/Proposed update

Helicopters

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)

Summary of proposed changes

The easiest way to discuss each change is probably to reference it by number, leaving any comments below the table.

	Object changed	Changes made	My comments
1	Primary categorisation	The original schema of categorisation by nation, type, and decade has been split into two schemata, categorisation by nation and type and by type and decade. Also, a categorisation by manufacturer has been added	Most of us have complained about categorisation by decade, and recommended that we get rid of it. For this reason, I have supplanted it with categorisation by nation and type. However, categorisation by decade is still very useful, and we shouldn't forget that. For example, finding all bomber aircraft of the world war II era is a useful goal. Decades, despite being arbitrary are not much more arbitrary than any list of time frames we could come up with, and have the enormous advantage of being much easier to define and implement. Lastly, I added categorisation by manufacturer, because it is a simple and universally useful tool.
2	Definition of nation	Nationality of primary user now overrides nationality of manufacturer	In the old system, the opposite was true, leading to some absurdities. The CF-18 Hornet, which is used only by Canada, is listed as a U.S. aircraft. The C-7 Caribou, which is named by a USAF designation, is described as a Canadian aircraft.
3	Naming conventions for international aircraft categories	Instead of being called [[Category:International {{{type}}}]], they will be [[Category:Internationally produced {{{type}}}]]	An attempt to remedy the rather confusing problem of categories such as Category:International airliners, a name that seems to imply that they have international range rather than international origins. Thanks to Askari Mark's suggestion that these aircraft be described as multinational rather than international, this change is no longer necessary.
4	Changing names of nations	Defined how the aircraft produced by now-defunct nations are to be described.	For example, Russian aircraft are Russian from 1900-1909 and from 2000-2009, Soviet and Russian from 1910-1919 and from 1990-1999, and Soviet from 1920-1989. This is just meant to make the naming conventions clear.
5	Category:Military aircraft	Consolidations Original categories New category 1 Category:AWACS aircraft Category:Airborne Early Warning and Control Category:Command and control aircraft 2 Category:Bomber aircraft Category:Bomber aircraft Category:Attack aircraft 3 Category:Cruise missiles Moved to Category:Rockets and missiles Category:Electronic warfare aircraft Unchanged 4 Category:Fighter aircraft Category:Fighter aircraft Category:Attack aircraft 5 Category:Reconnaissance aircraft Renamed Category:Military reconnaissance aircraft 6 Category:Patrol aircraft Category:Maritime patrol aircraft Category:ASW aircraft Category:Military trainer aircraft Unchanged 7 Category:Military transport aircraft Category:Military transport aircraft Category:Military rescue aircraft Category:Military tanker aircraft Category:Military utility aircraft	I based my recommendations here on Askari Mark's excellent analysis on categorisation; see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft_Archive_13#Military_aircraft_categorization. I also toke careful note of the preamble to this section, Role categories are intentionally broad—the danger of over-precision would be the creation of multiple closely-related categories with only hazy or semantic distinctions. Both are a subset of the more general AEW&C category. Attack aircraft are not always seen as a discrete group. For example, the USAF dropped the designation A- for attack in 1948. Also, the current page notes that Probably the haziest distinction here is what constitutes an "attack aircraft" - most fighters (and even some trainers) have some ground-attack capability, and the distinction between an attack aircraft and a "light bomber" may not be clear either. As "attack aircraft" can be specially designed aircraft with capabilities on the spectrum from fighters to bombers, they can be modified fighter aircraft, or modified bomber aircraft, I have also recommended merging more fighter-like attack aircraft into Category:Fighter aircraft. Some early cruise missiles were similar to unmanned aircraft, but this is no longer true. A far more useful category to put them in is Category:Rockets and missiles. See #2 above. Military reconnaissance is not the same thing as civil reconnaissance. Police forces also use scout planes that might better be described as civil reconnaissance aircraft. There is not such thing as an ASW aircraft that isn't a patrol aircraft. Again, the merger reflects a dedication to generalised categories as opposed to specific ones. The name change to 'maritime patrol' is intended to introduce more precise terminology; it is also (see discussion below this table) more commonly used in professional literature. Says Askari Mark: Transport and Utility aircraft could be broken out as separate categories, but I don't see much use of the latter term and the average Joe wouldn't know the difference. Most tanker and rescue aircraft are actually modified variants of transports, not designed as such from the start[.] I think that the strongest case exists for merging transport and utility aircraft. My main concern with a dedicated category for tankers is that there would be too few aircraft to justify such a category. Rescue aircraft is a rather confounding category. Although Mark says that they are usually modified transports, the only three I can think of are modified bombers used during World War II: the SB-17 Flying Fortress, SB-29 Superfortress, and modified PBY Catalinas. Perhaps they would fit better under the rubric of special-purpose aircraft?
6	Civil aircraft subcategories	Category:Sailplanes moved to Category:Aircraft configurations	A sailplane is not a type of civil aircraft; it is a synonym for glider. Some further comments: should mailplanes be merged with cargo aircraft?
7	Definition of Special-purpose aircraft	Aircraft in this category have been designed for a single, often unconventional or uncommon purpose. Most are modifications or specialised variants of existing aircraft types, and are designed for their mission at the expence of any other capabilities they may have had. An example is the [[WP-3D Orion]].	An attempt to clarify the definition of a special-purpose aircraft.
8	Further notes	Verbal explanation of Our category scheme.	For any category that contains both civil and military aircraft, it is useful to be able both to differentiate between military and civil types and to view them altogether. Thus, every such category should contain all mission types civil and military, as well as dedicated civil and military categories. This is the current, de facto standard, because it has been implemented using our category templates.
9	Secondary categorisation	Create over-arching subcategories between those currently listed and Category:Aircraft. Also rename several current categories to make their meaning more unambiguous. List of renamed categories: Category:High wing aircraft → Category:High-wing aircraft Category:Low wing aircraft → Category:Low-wing aircraft Category:Lifting bodies → Category:Lifting body aircraft Category:Multiple engine aircraft → Category:Multi-engined aircraft Category:Pusher aircraft → Category:Pusher-configuration aircraft Category:Single engine aircraft → Category:Single-engined aircraft Category:Thermojet engines → Category:Thermojet-powered aircraft Category:STOL → Category:STOL aircraft Category:Individual aircraft → Category:Notable ndividual aircraft	The new subcategories will help keep Category:Aircraft from getting too clogged.

Some (belated) comments

1. "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 {{{type}}}]]".
2. 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)?
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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)

1. I absolutely agree. I really didn't like the sound of 'international', but I couldn't think of any alternatives.

2. This is certainly worthy of more discussion. For example, I think that describing converted bombers as special-purpose aircraft falls right into the description of "special-purpose aircraft" in this scheme.

   Regarding the variants of the C-130, I would like to note how the AC-130, EC-130, HC-130, and MC-130 are currently categorised.

   • AC-130: attack
   • EC-130: electronic warfare
   • HC-130: rescue
   • MC-130: special-purpose
   The MC-130 and WP-3D are relatively easy to define as special-purpose largely because their missions are not included in any of the blanket categories offered on this page. The other three C-130 variants, however, are modified to perform missions that do fit those categories. In such a situation, should they be sorted as special-purpose or by their new mission, or perhaps both? This is worthy of more discussion.

3. I don't think that this presents a problem. ASW has more specificity than I would like, and Patrol encompasses ASW. As far as I can tell from your comment, you're not disputing this. I'm not saying that patrol = ASW, just that ASW is a subset that is too specific to be part of our cat scheme.

4. I think our biggest problem here is the example that was used. The CF-18 and C-7 are the examples that were used when the current WP:Air/C page was created, so those were the ones I adopted in my example; as it turns out, they were not the best ones. Perhaps a better example would be the one that you suggest: BAe Harrier (British) vs. AV-8 Harrier II (American).

   You assert that the CF-18 and C-7 shouldn't be in separate articles—and you're probably right. However, this is a matter for AFD, not for this discussion.

5. Not a bad idea. Please remember, though, that this particular issue is true under the current system as well, not just the proposal.
6. You are correct when you say that the third option is not a popular one. I proposed it about a year ago, but it did not receive a warm reception (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft_Archive_9#Naming_conventions). It also causes some problems: is the F-18 a McDonnell Douglas or a Boeing plane, and is the F-16 a General Dynamics or Lockheed Martin plane.

Karl Dickman ^talk 23:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I perceive that we're pretty much thinking along the same lines, so what follows are clarifications and expansions on my remarks and your responses:

• Re: #2, IMHO the "notable" variants of the C-130 are the AC-130, EC-130, KC-130, and MC-130, at least as far as the general reader is concerned — and the L-100 for its own sake; accordingly, the DC-130, HC-130, LC-130, NC-130, etc. could all be "special purpose". I really do think the rescue aircraft should be "reroled" into the "Special purpose" category for the same reason that you say "ASW" should be incorporated into "Patrol".

• Re: #3, I think "Maritime Patrol" is less ambiguous than "Patrol". The former is the usual term (and subsumes ASW), while the latter can include "patrol" fighters, which are more of a loitering interceptor. In the professional aerospace press, I almost always see "maritime patrol" and hardly ever simply "patrol".

• Re: #4, I should also like to point out that the AV-8 Harrier II is an example of a multinational aircraft, not an "American" one; it's a joint venture between BAe and Boeing, with the aircraft being built in America. I believe Jane's lists it that way.

• Re: #5, yes, I'm aware the problem remains unresolved under both schemas ... but the colors of the links shows that there's still only one article where there should be two — if you're going to stay consistent with your categorical mapping scheme.

• Re: #6, To the extent that the current approach raises a technical difficulty, people may be willing to reconsider a decision based solely on preference and custom. I still have a hard time referring to the "Boeing" F-15 and "Lockheed Martin" F-16; considering that neither Boeing, Lockheed or Martin were even building fighters at the time that these aircraft were designed and most were produced, it would be like "the Michael Jackson Beatles" simply because he bought up the rights for much of their material. Since we're more historically focused here, I'd recommend adding a condition to those I gave in remark #4: "3) if the main original producer is later bought by another company, the name of the former should be used". I use the word "producer" (as opposed to "designer") advisedly, because it helps one to work through naming problems like that for the Avro/HS/BAC/BAe/HAL 748 (which then comes out Avro 748 since Avro actually built 18 production aircraft beyond the two prototypes) or HS/BAe 146 (which comes out BAe 146 since HS never went forward with the design itself).

As I see it, there is one main issue that probably need further discussion among the general editorial membership (or at least the handful of those of us who care). ;) This is whether the "Special purpose" category should just be a "catch-all" primarily variant aircraft that don't fit into the other existing/proposed categories. I remain unclear on what really should be included in "Special-purpose aircraft" primary category, considering what the alternatives at its same level — "Military aircraft", "Civil aircraft" and "Experimental aircraft". What exactly is it that doesn't already fall into one or two of the other three? Unpowered aircraft? Unmanned aircraft? Missiles? Target drones? General aviation? Racers? Spaceplanes? Perhaps "Other aircraft" instead of "Special-purpose aircraft"? This would suggest that under the "Military aircraft" category there might need to be an "Other special mission aircraft" subcategory to capture those variants and few "designed as" aircraft whose function doesn't fit in the more "noteworthy" subcategories. Then, if a relevant category is added, one need only look there for articles to move. Askari Mark (Talk) 05:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)