Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide
|WikiProject Aviation||(Rated Project-class)|
- 1 Military aircraft policy question
- 2 Revamped style page
- 3 Incidents and accidents
- 4 Naming convention for Accidents
- 5 Push comparable aircraft inline
- 6 tense (was vs. is) in lead paragraph
- 7 Style change for lists of accidents and incidents
- 8 Metric vs imperial units in aviation articles
- 9 Tailfins
- 10 Suggestion to modify airline destinations wiki template
- 11 aircraft manufacturer as a reliable primary source
Military aircraft policy question
I have a general policy question about "users", and in particular military users. I get the impression that some contributors are rather keen to associate aircraft with, let us say, the RAF or some other AF. I've seen a few articles now where an aircraft whose use was mostly in the civil field is ascribed to an AF on the basis of one or two of the type operating under military markings for trials or as a workhorse for the development of systems that might have military use. These were mostly civilians used in peace-time. Of course, there have been many civilian aircraft impressed into military use in war-time, sometimes with only a few of type.
Here is a specific example of the difficulty: currently we list the Avro 618 as being used by both the RAF and the RAE. The casual reader might suppose that these aircraft were in service in significant numbers with the RAF in the early 1930s. As far as I know (Thetford's book) there is no record of it having been with the RAF. Peter Cooper, in his Farnborough history notes Fokker VIIa/3m J7986 in 1936 in the wireless wing; but even supposing this was really an Avro 618 (which from one other web ref it does not seem to have been), would this really justify including the RAF as a user of the aircraft? Yes, it wore an RAF serial, but is this what we mean by a user?
In this particular case could you argue that the RAE was a user on the basis that the knowledgeable would know that the RAE hangers contained several one-offs. But would we list the RAE as a user of the Dornier Do335, for example; since it wore an RAF serial (AM223) in its brief U.K. life, should we list both RAF and RAE as users? Surely not?
AM223 is not a RAF serial number, it stands for Air Ministry and they were applied to captured axis aircraft during and after WW2.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) 12.10, 1 September 2009
Revamped style page
I recently revamped the style guide page, dividing it up into separate subpages. Hopefully this makes it clearer and easier to cite in discussions. There are a few items to address in rounding out the page. Please expand on this list so we can come up with a definitive guide.Trevor MacInnis contribs 08:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Tense - is vs. was. Cite examples. present
- Expand flags to include roundels.
- Expand on naming incl. section on pagemoves (avoiding controversial mass moves, keeping series' in line with each other, etc).
- Expand on redirects (create for all possible variations) eg. Horten Ho XVIII, Horten Ho.XVIII, Horten Ho 23, etc.
- add section on colors per Wikipedia:Colours, avoiding bold/blinding colors.
- Sections to avoid in articles. Colour schemes and markings section in aircraft, etc...
- Badges section for military aircraft?
- Types of lists to avoid?
- Expand images, esp. captions
- Infoboxes - limiting item lists in the infobox
- Section on Foreign characters in article and infobox. Its ok in the intro (foreign names of foreign airline/aircraft etc), but not elsewhere, esp. in article name or infobox.
- Expand external links, perhaps add common links considered non-encyclopedic/spam
Incidents and accidents
Editors at Burlington International Airport have taken it upon themselves to chronicle any plane landing with its oil warning light on, which is about as serious as anything gets at a small airport which is little used. We could use some robust guidelines under "incidents and accidents." Right now, there aren't any. I would appreciate suggestions on eliminating this section from BTV, which is now quite boring. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Have you seen Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content which says: Accidents or incidents should only be included if:
- The accident was fatal to either the aircraft occupants or persons on the ground.
- The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport.
- The accident invoked a change in procedures, regulations or process that had a wide effect on other airports or airlines or the aircraft industry. MilborneOne (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Naming convention for Accidents
This all out war against the Hyphen has got to stop. If a Hyphen is used as part of a noun then it should be embraced with open arms. It is causing so much hassle having hyphens removed from article titles when they are patently supposed to be there. Let us have common sense prevail shall we?!Petebutt (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Push comparable aircraft inline
Just as we want the refs inline, the comparable aircraft should also be inline.
Somebody has compared the current aircraft against aircraft X for reason Y and we've got a place in the article where we use this comparison and an inline reference to follow.
- Wouldn't it be nice to reduce the scope for "More reason-less, unexplained nationalist POV-pushing"? Hcobb (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
tense (was vs. is) in lead paragraph
I noticed that many articles about aircraft that are no longer being manufactured start with something like "The Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress was a ....". In this particular case, many examples of the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress still exist and in this case, a few are still flying. I submit that only aircraft that do not exist anymore, even if the only examples of survivors are in museums, should begin with "The Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress is a ....", since "was" implies that none still exist. I have noticed that in other fields, it is handled that way. For instance, in cars, the Ford Model T and Chevrolet Vega begin with "is" as well as camera articles about the Nikon F2 and Canon F-1. --rogerd (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- What about aircraft that are no longer used for the purpose for which they were created, to the extent that ZERO armed B-17s fly today? Hcobb (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Style change for lists of accidents and incidents
At Talk:List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft#Reconsidering_linking_in_this_article is a proposal to greatly simplify entries in that list by reducing wikilinks to one per event. As that list is given in wp:AVLIST as the stylistic prototype for similar lists, editors here will be interested. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Metric vs imperial units in aviation articles
Over at Mount Salak Sukhoi Superjet 100 crash, an article about a Russian plane crashing in Indonesia, my change to place metric units first for flight level, mountain height and crash site was reverted with the justification "As this is an aviation article, we should use imperial first". Is this indeed policy, and if so where? Jpatokal (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- I dont think the project has any particularly guidelines and the standard rules apply, but in aviation most countries outside of the soviet union (even metric ones) use imperial measurements for height so it would seem normal to give the heights in feet first (which would reflect most references). MilborneOne (talk) 07:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I hope this is the correct place for this comment - if not, I apologize. Is there a reason why there are no tailfin designs as part of the airlines infobox? Could we add it, say, at the bottom of the infobox? Many designs are quite distinctive and different from the general airline logo. BigSteve (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure they are notable enough for the infobox, it may worth asking at the airlines project you may get more opinions. MilborneOne (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion to modify airline destinations wiki template
At present, the core content of airline destination article is in a huge table with 'colour coded' rows. It contains information mixed up. This makes it a bit technical and clumpsy in my view. For e.g British_Airways_Destinations
May I please suggest a project to split airline destination wiki articles main table to two separate tables. The first table will list all the operationally active ones, and the second one will list terminated, seasonal, chartered flights etc with colour coding. There is a downside to this is. The 'maintenance' will be a bit of overhead since it involves moving rows when an airline discontinues/terminates a flight. However for the user - this will really help in my view since in most cases, reader will be looking for operationally active ones ( i.e the first table for e.g while planning journey) rather than historical or special ones. --Smet (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
aircraft manufacturer as a reliable primary source
Primary sources aren't normally permitted, but the certification process is an independent validation of aircraft performances. Can we use aircraft manufacturers as a reliable source when an aircraft is certified by a reputable authority? (FAA, EASA, JCAB, CASA, TCCA...) Most specs would not be sufficient, secondary sources for wikipedia. And I don't think aviation secondary sources (Flight, Aviation week, jane's...) could have the resources to verify performance with flight tests, they rely on manufacturers too. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)