Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Registrations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Essays
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.
 Low  This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
 

IAW with WP:SILENCE I have added a link to here from Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content. MilborneOne (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This page looks good and is probably needed. At what point can it be considered "official" and the tag removed? - Ahunt (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Not 100% sure but if nobody really objects then I presume it changes from proposal to guideline. It has been up for a week without any objections. I would think it would be better that somebody else other than me as originator makes that decision MilborneOne (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I only found it when you posted the link at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content which I was watching. I guess I missed it when you put it up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Registrations (which I also watch). How about we give it a few more days and then I can detag it? - Ahunt (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
OK MilborneOne (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Lacking any objections, I have removed the "proposed tag". - Ahunt (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Manufacturer's construction numbers[edit]

Since c/n's are available from quite a few sources, what should our policy be for their inclusion (or exclusion)? Askari Mark (Talk) 02:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont think that c/ns are really notable for an encyclopedia unless it is the only way to identify aircraft if it doesnt have a serial or registration. Information on production batches including C/Ns are readily available on amateur websites, I dont think this is the place for them. But like everything I am open to consensus but I am always wary of turning wikipedia into a plane spotters site rather than an encyclopedia.. MilborneOne (talk) 12:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I have not been too keen on the addition of s/n's myself. I posed the question in part because I'm surprised no one has started doing this. The one advantage to c/n's is that serials & registrations change when there's a change of ownership, while the c/n remains a constant. There are some sites that provide them: Baugher's, Scramble, and quite a few planespotter sites. In any case, I certainly wouldn't want to require the use of c/n's, s/n's and regs. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we should add a note on the page about only using c/ns to identify those aircraft already listed as notable enough to mention either the military serial or registration when the other identities are not available or do not clearly identify an aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 11:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. - Ahunt (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Added per above. MilborneOne (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Mfg C/N's should be included for specific aircraft of historic significance that from mass production. The impermanence and transferability of identifying items like registration numbers and markings create uncertainty, an example is how often the famed Memphis Belle (B-17) name is copied to other aircraft, including another B-17 flying in its namesake honor. To identify who is the real Memphis Belle, it is common to use the military assigned serial number, which is unique to that aircraft (thus a stand-in for the C/N). However the Luftwaffe used the makers C/N as the military assigned serial number and that is what is reported instead. In civilian aircraft world the registration number is transferable, the 172P Mathias Rust flew to Moscow the registration "D-ECJB" has been used on 2 other aircraft, including another 172(H model), and it can transfer again. Note in List of airworthy Ju 52s, one Junker is registered D-CDLH, yet it has D-AQUI painted in huge letters (what it originally had in the 30's) and at one time was also registered as LN-DAH, LN-KAF, HB-ABS, N130LV, N52JU; 7 registration numbers, same aircraft. So the need to include C/N in a few cases is clear, yet not needed on every aircraft, just those with significant historical impact. ≥ Flightsoffancy (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
The military serial number has nothing to do with the construction number so not really relevant. As for D-ECJB reliable sources indicate that only one D-ECJB landed in Russia so as far the encyclopedia goes that is all that is required. MilborneOne (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
The entire point is a PERMANENT ID. The military serial number IS A PERMANENT ID, thus the C/N is not needed. As to D-ECJB, which D-ECJB? If you say a 172 with D-ECJB, which one? Flightsoffancy (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Just to reply to the shouting the military serial number is not permament they do change and not all aircraft have them, also you ask if you see a 172 with D-ECJB which one - I think you are mixing up an encyclopedia with a plane spotting site. MilborneOne (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree that these are generally not-notable. It doesn't matter that a registration may have been later re-assigned, serial numbers for aircraft in addition to registrations is WP:TRIVIA. While it might belong in a plane-spotting book or website, it doesn't belong in a general use encyclopedia like Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 02:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
According to this logic the military serial # is also trivial and should be deleted. Flightsoffancy (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
References will identify aircraft by what is painted on the outside in most cases that is the military serial number or civil registration and they meet our need to clearly identify the aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The fundamental goal of Wikipedia is accuracy. There are a few cases related to aircraft registration that the accuracy is compromised, so to be true including construction numbers is the logical way to insure that standard. Flightsoffancy (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually that is a common mis-perception - the goal of Wikipedia is actually verifiability. - Ahunt (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Definition of "verify" is "to act as ultimate proof or evidence of; serve to confirm; substantiate", which underscores the need to list construction serial numbers in some cases, especially since a number of aircraft had multiple registration numbers, and some registration numbers have been re used on several aircraft. I saw on the MH370 wiki page the Mfg Serial number is included.
Put it this way, in the Cessna 172 page there is a dozen aircraft pictured. Does it list the Registration number of every one? No. Only a few are listed because of noteworthy events. This is the same reason for including construction serial numbers in a few cases too, when the aircraft is of very particular significance and/or the registration has been used elsewhere. Flightsoffancy (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
So to clarify, is registration instead of cn the generally accepted consensus now? I've noticed in the course of editing the DC-9 article that someone changed the section to list only serials and removed all references to any registrations listed. I've added them back with serials in parentheses, but I figure that's a temporary measure until I get an answer here. Thanks. ETIngram (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Current consensus here is to use the primary identification of the airframe which is either the civil registration or the military serial number if either is not available then the cn can be used which is pretty rare. Its getting the balance between a general encyclopedia (which we are) and a enthusiast website (which we are not), most readers would expect us to identify what is painted on the aircraft and the cn is mainly confined to enthusiast sources. MilborneOne (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The change to construction numbers on the DC-9 page was my doing. I was not aware of the existence of this page when I did so. There is an ongoing discussion regarding the whole of formatting for survivor/display sections on the style guide talk page. –Noha307 (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Not in this case, as WP:V says "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." - Ahunt (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

What about military/paramilitary aviation fleets?[edit]

I find this essay quite useful in avoiding "information overload" to wikipedia readers; however though there are guidelines for Airline fleet lists nothing is said about military fleets (e.g.: Air Forces, Naval Aviation, Police and Security Forces). Wouldn't it be good to have specific guidelines for this, in a dedicated section headung? Feedback will be appreciated. Regards, DPdH (talk) 08:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it is pretty much covered that these aren't to be included, but if you think it needs to be more explicit that can be added. - Ahunt (talk) 11:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)