Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide

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?

I'm new to this and may have overlooked some guidelines; but if they don't exist, maybe they should?TSRL (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

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 81.136.213.16 (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)

1. Tense - is vs. was. Cite examples. present
2. Expand flags to include roundels.
3. Expand on naming incl. section on pagemoves (avoiding controversial mass moves, keeping series' in line with each other, etc).
4. Expand on redirects (create for all possible variations) eg. Horten Ho XVIII, Horten Ho.XVIII, Horten Ho 23, etc.
5. add section on colors per Wikipedia:Colours, avoiding bold/blinding colors.
6. Sections to avoid in articles. Colour schemes and markings section in aircraft, etc...
   1. Badges section for military aircraft?
7. Types of lists to avoid?
8. Expand images, esp. captions
9. Infoboxes - limiting item lists in the infobox
10. 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.
11. 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)

None of the incidents listed were notable and the one accident appears to have been unconnected with the airport. I have removed them all. MilborneOne (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Hopefully, the draft content will make it into the outline in the near future.Student7 (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Naming convention for Accidents

Hyphens

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.

Anything else is a needless editorial value judgment. Hcobb (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

Tailfins

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)

Thanx! BigSteve (talk) 06:54, 2 July 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)

You may be better asking at the main project talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft as it is not really relevant to the style guide and that page gets more visitors. MilborneOne (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent image removals

Today, there was mass removal of aircraft images from List of United States bomber aircraft. I have started a discussion about this on that article's talk page here. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 22:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on victory claims in fighter ace articles

I've started a discussion on whether claim lists should be included in fighter pilot biographies at WT:WikiProject Military history#Victory claim lists in fighter ace biographies that may be of interest to this project's members.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

"Deadliest crash" trivia

The style guide should mention the deadliest crash trivia and about how it sometimes uses original research and needs a reliable source(s). Tigerdude9 (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Rather, the style guide should say that such trivia should be left out altogether, precisely because it's trivia. The first or deadliest crash by type, airline or country is something worth of mention, but any other position in the 'death toll league table' is just trivia. The topic was already discussed here. --Deeday-UK (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree, its an encyclopedia, so we don't include trivia as per WP:TRIVIA. - Ahunt (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the addition to the guidelines for now, as we need to work out the best wording here first, and agree on it. As written, it's just not ready for prime time. - BilCat (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Well Deeday-UK did say that "The first or deadliest crash by type, airline or country is something worth of mention," so those could be an exception. Tigerdude9 (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on unit conventions

There is a discussion ongoing on the conventions concerning units in aviation at Talk:Airbus_A350_XWB#Units. Please do chip in. ExcitedEngineer (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Aircraft Manufacture Aircraft Section Table

I would like to propose a common table for organizing lists of aircraft on aircraft manufacturer articles. At the moment, there is no standard format and it shows in the scattershot approaches to lists. Over the past few months, I have been bold and converted a bunch of aircraft manufacturer articles to use sortable tables. I will note that the table is not of my own creation, but was (I believe) first designed by FlugKerl.

There are a number of benefits:

• It allows the information to be sorted in any order the user would prefer. I have been default ordering the entries chronologically, but the entries can also be sorted alphabetically or by number built.
• It includes a good amount of pertinent information, but not too much. When an airplane first flew and how many of it a company built is information that seems generally relevant to an aircraft manufacturer’s article. For example, first flight dates show the development of aircraft designs over time and placing them in the greater context of the other models a company built. Similarly, the number built provides illustration of the size of the company itself and demonstrates the relative importance of each model to the company. On the other hand, more specific details about an aircraft can be found by clicking through to the dedicated article.
• It generally looks much better.
• Most importantly, it creates a uniform format.

When compared to the existing lists, there are a couple downsides to the table I have been using:

• While it can accommodate references, it doesn’t handle them super well. However, I don’t feel like this is a major problem, because I don’t think there really should be references in the aircraft section anyway. The information there should be supported by either overall bibliographic references for the entire article or by the individual aircraft articles themselves.
• It results in a lot of extra white space on the right side of the article on desktop computers. This really isn’t noticeable on shorter lists, but it becomes a problem on longer ones. It is also worth noting that this isn’t a problem on mobile. One option is to see if there is a way to wrap the table so that there is a second column of entries to the right of the first, but I don’t know if this is possible. (I asked about the possibility on the table help talk page.) Another option would be to fill some of the blank space with pictures.
• I have been only converting lists of manned aircraft. However, a number of these companies have produced unmanned vehicles such as missiles. While separating aircraft into subsections based on role seems inappropriate, it also seems reasonable that missiles are separated in some manner. I am not sure the best way to do this. There could be entirely separate tables in separate subsections, or one table with a second title and set of column headers. (I have to look into wiki formatting to see if this second option is possible, but it seems doable.)
• A number of aircraft have separate articles for separate variants, (e.g. B-24) and in this past these seemed to be included on the list by indenting under the main article. The table doesn’t seem to support this well – although it might be possible to mitigate this by indenting the model name.

One other problem I have run into is coming up with a good uniform terminology for the type column. I know that information for this column should only describe the configuration and role of the aircraft – and not historical notes – but beyond that I am not entirely sure. So far, I have been using a number of engines-number of wings-role format. One thing I am not sure of is whether it should be exactly the same between all instances or should include some variation for each. For example, many companies existed for lengths of time such that they built both piston engine and jet aircraft. However, for a company that never built a jet aircraft it seems weird to specify for each entry that it has a piston engine.

A couple notes about the way I have been using the table so far, specifically accuracy of information:

• I have been careful to list only first flight dates in the first column. Many aircraft articles have include introduction [into service] dates in addition to or in place of first flight dates.
• The first flight dates listed are for the date that the first airframe built by that company in that configuration flew. So, for example, even though the first Vought F4U flew in 1940, the first Goodyear FG-1 only flew in 1943.
• Similar to the above, I have included only the number of airframes that company specifically built. So, for example, even though over 18,000 B-24s were built, Consolidated only manufactured around 9,000 to 1,000 of them.

Finally, there are a few other issues I have run into that are irrespective of what type of formatting is used:

• Another decision is whether to use the manufacturer’s internal model numbers/designations or the more common service designations. For example, Sikorsky S-70 versus H-60. As per WP:AIR/NC, the choice is generally weighted towards whichever is more common. One exception to this may be when it comes to license built models. The Atlantic Aircraft article is a good example of this.
• It is important to note which aircraft were actually built by which version of a company, since so many of the companies have changed ownership over the years. For example, the Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company had a bunch of Curtiss-Wright designs on it.

All-in-all, I think the table is a good solution, but I would like to hear if anyone else has suggestions or comments. –Noha307 (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Whoops! It would be really helpful if I included an example of the table, don't you think?

Summary of aircraft built by Brewster

Model name	First flight	Number built	Type
Brewster XSBA	1936	1	Single engine monoplane scout bomber
Brewster F2A Buffalo	1937	509	Single engine monoplane naval fighter
Brewster SB2A Buccaneer	1941	771	Single engine monoplane scout bomber
Brewster F3A Corsair	1943	735	Single engine monoplane naval fighter
Brewster XA-32	1943	2	Prototype single engine mononplane ground attack aircraft

–Noha307 (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

No - it's rules for rules sakes - and entirely unnecessary - every article does not need to be exactly the same.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Admittedly, it seems like a lot because I wanted to make sure I touched on every issue. However, it seems entirely reasonable to me that there is a uniform format. After all, is that not the purpose of the style guide? –Noha307 (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The logic of sortable tables requires your Type column to be broken out into separate Class, Role, etc. columns. Also, gratuitous coloring is against the style guide. Where a table is adopted, why not base it on the default format defined at WP:AVILIST, just omit the Country? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair point, I admit I did a bad job of reading the style guide before I wrote the above proposal. I could see removing the bolded model names, color, and smaller text. However, I think the centered first flight dates and number built is particularly useful in improving legibility. Also, the Airlines subproject has a fleet table that uses both colors and smaller text and the MOS seems to suggest that in certain situations special formatting is permitted.

As I wrote above, I think the key with which columns to include is to focus on what is most pertinent to the manufacturer. Having multiple columns seems to dilute that a bit. On the one hand, the class/role columns would help to solve the awkward phrasing of the type column. However, on the other hand, it would miss certain seemingly important characteristics such as number/type of engines, number of wings, and land/seaplane.

After considering it, I am warming to the idea of a basing it on the WP:AVILIST guidelines. However, some of the above issues still need to be worked out. –Noha307 (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, no need for the excessive formatting - it makes editing harder, some of the code was unnecessary (ie: align left) as it was forcing the defaults, and it makes it more likely to end up broken in future (or even while entering the data), as has happened in the past. Cleaner as well, and less bloat for those with limited bandwidth, which is most of the world. That said, it is good if the same basic table can be standard for aircraft manufacturer articles - it makes it easier to work from a common, consistent format so it is more obvious when there is a problem that needs to be fixed - as with the Bellanca page, which was very nearly a listing of types they didn't even design, while their entire decades long history, with dozens of important designs were ignored - which became more obvious once it was put in a table. Here is my take on the table from above - also, I have simplified several field names.

Brewster aircraft

Model	Date	Number	Type
XSBA	1936	1	Single engine monoplane scout bomber
F2A Buffalo	1937	509	Single engine monoplane naval fighter
SB2A Buccaneer	1941	771	Single engine monoplane scout bomber
F3A Corsair	1943	735	Single engine monoplane naval fighter
XA-32	1943	2	Prototype single engine monoplane ground attack aircraft

- NiD.29 (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like the class columns - a notes column is more flexible, and pertinent, not least it can have a link for a reference without having to add yet another field.

Individual models have no need to be covered at this level - it is supposed to be a overview of the types - detail on individual types should be left to their respective pages. Even when a variant has its own page, it would be linked from the base model anyway. The rest is bloat and this makes it easier to keep it in check, otherwise the manufacturer page just becomes a duplicate of the pages it links to. The only addition I can think of would be some form of standard note for designs built under licence - and the use of brackets around dates for aircraft that didn't fly - but should still be mentioned. I see no reason why missiles should not be included, although drones, especially the smaller ones are more problematic - I lean toward leaving them out unless they are receiving a serial or registration number from an official authority. One other special case - there are quite a few companies that only produced one or two basic designs - no need for a table for this I think, so it should not be fully mandatory, but if more than four designs were made - then it becomes useful. Almost forgot - the aircraft manufacturer doesn't need to be mentioned in the list. - NiD.29 (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

A few more refined test tables. First in the initially proposed style:

Summary of aircraft built by Brewster

Model name	First flight	Number built	Type
Brewster XSBA	1936	1	Single engine monoplane scout bomber
Brewster F2A Buffalo	1937	509	Single engine monoplane naval fighter
Brewster SB2A Buccaneer	1941	771	Single engine monoplane scout bomber
Brewster F3A Corsair	1943	735	Single engine monoplane naval fighter
Brewster XA-32	1943	2	Prototype single engine monoplane ground attack aircraft

Second, in the AVLIST style:

Summary of aircraft built by Brewster

Type	Date	No. Built	Class	Role	Status
Brewster XSBA	1936	1	Single piston engine	Bomber	Operational
Brewster F2A Buffalo	1937	509	Single piston engine	Fighter	Production
Brewster SB2A Buccaneer	1941	771	Single piston engine	Bomber	Production
Brewster F3A Corsair	1943	735	Single piston engine	Fighter	Production
Brewster XA-32	1943	2	Single piston engine	Attack	Prototype

I agree that most detail should be left to the dedicated articles. I also definitely agree there needs to be some sort of standard notation for aircraft built under license. The problem with not including the manufacturers name is you end up with entries that are too vague or short, such as "K", which seem a bit ridiculous. –Noha307 (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Why not Model K then? That notation is used in the sources as well. Also a lot of aircraft have a very long list of vaguely defined roles - and status becomes repetitive when all of the types are retired - all of these are more appropriate to the aircraft's own page. This should be a brief overview - and if the production numbers are filled out, the difference between production types and prototypes should be clear. The more fields, the less that actually get filled out as well - a lot of aviation project tables now have entire columns that are blank - probably never to be filled out precisely because of this obsession with "classes".

The |+ centres and bolds the title, so the extra text and the bolding is redundant, and if the header is kept short for the two number columns, the centering there has nothing to do - likewise the style="background:#efefef;" is a default and doesn't need to be included. - NiD.29 (talk) 02:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

To push the WP:AVILIST approach further, here is a variant based on our established template:avilisthead:

Type	Country	Class	Role	Date	Status	No.	Notes
XSBA	(omit)	Propeller	Bomber	1936	Prototype	1	(citations etc)
F2A Buffalo		Piston engine	Fighter	1937	Production	509
SB2A Buccaneer		Piston engine	Bomber	1941	Production	771
F3A Corsair		Piston engine	Fighter	1943	Production	735
XA-32		Piston engine	Attack	1943	Prototype	2

Some notes on the existing default version:

1. We do not need a title telling us what should already be in the main text, either as a subheading or as an explanatory paragraph, or for the more prolific manufacturers in the article title.
2. The Notes column provides a home for arbitrary remarks and any citations which might prove necessary.
3. This format and its columns were thrashed out through long discussion some years ago, and revised last year.

Some notes on what we might customise here:

1. A new template option with the Country omitted can be easily introduced. It could be done now with the "nonstandard" option but that would not normalize the column headings. I used an existing format so you can see how short the wikitext code is. The new option would be something like {{avilisthead|nocountry}} and would save endless future arguments over columns.
2. Endless repetition of the manufacturer's name is uninformative and downright irritating.
3. I have realised that the 'Class value "Propeller" can be subdivided into piston and turboprop. This might even be backported to the Style Guide.
4. To make more fundamental changes from the current default, including all the examples suggested above here, would require more long discussion, as it would impact the other popular formats/usages.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Having the exact same value for every entry in a column is not particularly useful (or attractive) either - in this example, all of these are piston engine propeller powered monoplanes. What value could be entered that would be useful? Keeping in mind that the needs of a company like Boeing are going to be vastly different than say Stinson, or Command-aire. Many manufacturers would likewise have little use for it, so we could (on those) eliminate a space wasting column ie - {{avilisthead|nocountry|noclass}}. I agree that the title serves little purpose. The table is also getting more complicated, which means less likely to be filled out properly, or in full - and it is obvious when it isn't - which doesn't look good either. It also doesn't solve the problem of aircraft with either no clearly defined role - or many similarly important roles. - NiD.29 (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I am somewhat against an undefined notes column, as I am afraid it will end up becoming a place for WP:LISTCRUFT and other historical information that may not belong there. However, I agree that a title for the table is redundant. The number of engines still seems like an important quality to include, since it drastically affects the size of the airplane and there is large difference between a single and multi engine airplane. I don't think the idea of the number built column being just "No." is good because it is not clear what the number refers to. (As support, I would reference the rationale for the decision to rename the "survivors" section to "surviving aircraft".)

The problem I foresee with using "date" as the heading instead of "first flight" is that it is too vague. I realize that it is an attempt to solve the issue that certain first flight vs. introduction dates aren't always both readily available for every aircraft, but if it is not specified and both types of dates are used in the table it can cause problems (e.g. aircraft #1 incorrectly appears later in the list chronologically than aircraft #2, because aircraft #1 used an introduction date, while aircraft #2 used a first flight date.)

@Steelpillow: Could you provide a link to the discussions you mentioned in your third point?

@NiD.29: My bad, I should have removed the background style and bolded style, I just missed it. I had been focused on getting the date and number built columns centered – which I still feel is important. Also, I would say that each entry should only list the base model. For example, "66 Aircruiser", not "66-67, -70, -75, -76, -80 Aircruiser". Listing every variant is too clunky. –Noha307 (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Noha307: The original discussions are either at, or linked from, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Lists. Note that many changes from the standard format being discussed here will also apply to those existing list formats and I can truly promise you they will not be easy to gain consensus for. The default set of columns is the minimum that varying interests could agree on after much haggling - everybody has a reason for their favourite column - so I don't hold out much hope of consensus to trim any more just for manufacturers. I would recommend to all that you check whether your preferred options have already been discussed.

@NiD.29:The Class column is sometimes used for other information, so if need be that can be adapted to suit the product range of the individual manufacturer, via consensus on the article talk page. Note that the guideline for the role already includes "Multi-role (use this only where the roles are of comparable importance)", so that criticism is misplaced. See also comments above on changing the broader consensus for the aviation list style guide.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Multi-role is a modern term very much tied with the Tornado development, and doesn't fit for 1930s aircraft, which were usually referred to at the time as "Utility" types - an equally meaningless word, since it simply throws everything into the pot and by doing so, says precisely nothing. Worse, some of the companies will simply have a long list of "utility" or "multirole" types. Those are the ones I am referring to when deleting the entire column, and the same applies to any column that locally only contains the same information in every entry. It adds nothing, makes the table wider, so it is less accessible on smaller screens, crowds out more relevant information, is unsightly, and often is left empty. I wonder - for those tables where most of the fields in a column are still blank - can the code be adjusted to automatically hide that column until 50-75% of them have been filled out (adjust percentage accordingly)?

As for the Aircruiser, the reason for the rest of the numbers is that the 66 by itself is meaningless in Bellanca's designation system - during that period it was always ##-##, although the cleaner alternative in hindsight would be to use 66-67 family (or whichever variant was the most numerous). - NiD.29 (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I would have to agree that the term multirole has a very specific connotation when it comes to aircraft. Most people would interpret the term in that military context rather than the more general meaning of "having more than one role".

One problem I have encountered is that "roles" are geared much more towards military than civilian aircraft. Light civil airplanes especially don't usually have a role associated with them. One of the closest terms I could find was "cabin monoplane", but this is an admittedly obsolete term that appears to have more or less originated in the 1920s and 30s to differentiate the enclosed airplanes from the ones with an open cockpit. I would hesitate to call a Cessna 172 or a Piper PA-28 Cherokee a "utility" aircraft, as, like the term "mulitrole", it seems (at least to me) to have a particular connotation in aviation – essentially light cargo carrying aircraft. However, it also ends up being a catch-all category for any light airplane. Unfortunately, it may be what we have to end up with as there seems to be nothing better to use.

All that being said, my purpose for this discussion is not to rehash the particular words used to define certain aircraft, so I don't mean to seem overly focused on that.

@NiD.29: Your concern about the table being too wide is surprising because in my initial proposal my worry was that the table was not wide enough and, while I realized it works well on mobile, it would result in a bunch of unused space on the right side of the screen when accessed on desktops. This was the reason I never converted the Douglas Aircraft Company article – it has a large number of aircraft (73+) and therefore the problem would be particularly acute. The only partial solution I could come up with to solve it was to fill the space with thumbnail images.

@Steelpillow: I can see now that I should have started this discussion on the lists page, thanks for linking to it there. –Noha307 (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

On roles again, WP:AVILIST also includes "Utility (includes mail, agricultural, firefighter, air-sea rescue, etc)" in the list of values. The values listed were drawn from a solid evidence base of printed directories such as Jane's and other RS, they are how the industry does it and what informed readers expect, they are not merely editorial opinion pulled out of the air. Changing them needs more that the latter. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Steelpillow: Do you have any suggestions on how to deal with currently active manufacturers? So far, I have only been working on articles for manufacturers that are defunct. I am not quite sure how to deal with entries where the number of aircraft built will continue to increase. Would it just need to be periodically updated? Or is there some better method? –Noha307 (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

It has to be done the hard way. Whenever somebody publishes a reliable update we can adopt it and add a cite it in the Notes column. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

If we use a modified avlist template, is it possible to at least reorder the columns so that the most pertinent information (as mentioned in the second bullet point of my initial recommendation) comes first and similar information (class, role, and status) is grouped together? For example:

Type	Date	No.	Class	Role	Status	Notes

Instead of:

Type	Class	Role	Date	No.	Status	Notes

Also, could we change the title of the "No." column to be more descriptive in some way? "No." is very vague since it is not clear what type of number it is referring to. The heading for the "survivors" section was changed to "surviving aircraft" for the same reason. –Noha307 (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

These issues appear relevant to all the options at WP:AVILIST, they are not special to manufacturer's lists that I can see. As such the consensus reached at WT:AVILIST would need to be overturned by a new consensus. Do you want to suspend this discussion and open one over there? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Great - lets have the columns no-one ever fills out (and are utterly irrelevant to the manufacturer page anyway) right next to the name. That's going to look really professional. As for No. - it is pretty clear what number is referring to. Indeed - what other meaning can you imagine being included? Number of seats, engines and wings do not fit. - NiD.29 (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

While I was thinking that the order of the columns would only have to be changed for a custom manufacturer's version of the list (the one you mentioned above as not having the country column), moving the discussion there sounds like a good idea. I should have started this discussion there anyway. –Noha307 (talk) 23:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The RfC has been created. I hope I did it correctly. –Noha307 (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

ICAO/IATA code DAB entry formatting

MOS:DAB is ambiguous about how to format code-based entries on DAB pages, and putting designators/identifiers on DAB pages is a bit of a unique case anyway. Since there are quite a few of these entries out there, in the interests of consistency I propose adding a short section to the Aviation style guide specifically for DAB page entries.

For formatting, I suggest the following:

• Start with the code in question, followed by a comma
• Add "former" in the case of IATA codes that have been reassigned
• State the type of code ("ICAO"/"IATA", "airline designator"/"location identifier") followed by the word "for"
• Give the link to the airport/airline
• For airports, add another comma and state the location

For example:

• ACA, IATA location identifier for General Juan N. Álvarez International Airport, Acapulco, Guerrero, Mexico
• ACA, ICAO airline designator for Air Canada
• IST, former IATA location identifier for Istanbul Atatürk Airport, Turkey

While stating the code at the beginning of the entry is probably redundant, my sense is that it is more consistent with the examples given in MOS:DAB, all of which start with a phrase that clearly relates back to term being disambiguated (which "General Juan N. Álvarez International Airport", for example, does not). In essence, it helps to clarify why the item in question appears on this DAB page at all.

I suppose an argument could be made that MOS:DABREDIR should apply (since ICAO and IATA codes are often treated as alternative names), which would require putting the DAB link on the code itself to a code-specific redirect page, i.e.:

• ACA (IATA location identifier), General Juan N. Álvarez International Airport, Acapulco, Guerrero, Mexico

This seems silly to me, and would create a lot more work (and redirects) that all add little of value.

Thoughts?

RAult (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The proper place to discuss guidelines applicable to disambiguation pages is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages (or perhaps also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation). I expect any guidelines developed here without input from the disambiguation project will likely be disregarded by the members of that project.

The examples at MOS:DABACRO suggest there is no need to uselessly start the entries by repeating the unlinked code at the start of each entry. There is no reason not to simply start each entry with the target link (airport, airline, etc) and include descriptive text afterwards. older ≠ wiser 19:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Service introductions and retirements on individual Year in Aviation pages

I've started a discussion at Talk:Timeline of aviation about the criteria for listing aircraft introductions and retirements by individual operators; I think that in most cases, only the first and last operator should be listed, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Your input is obviously welcome. Carguychris (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Lockheed C-130 Hercules operators § Flag icons in section headings

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Lockheed C-130 Hercules operators § Flag icons in section headings. Marchjuly (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Terminology: manned/unmanned

In the wider context, the term "manned" is generally being replaced by euphemisms in order to avoid gender connotations. However it has dual usage, according to context referring either to the male of our species, or to "mankind", aka Homo sapiens generally. This latter meaning is often the correct technical usage in aviation. For example a drone carrying passengers cannot be described as "crewed" because it isn't. The generic term for both crew and passengers is "complement", but that has no related adjective. So we use "manned". Thus, say autonomous e-drones are classified as manned or unmanned. There have been a few edit conflicts over this recently.

So I propose that we add a new Terminology subsection to the section on Content/English and explain it there, along the lines of:

The generic term for both crew and passengers is "complement". For the adjective, use "manned". Thus, say autonomous e-drones are classified as manned or unmanned; none is "crewed" .

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that we should prohibit the use of the term crewed. Terminology is changing on this everywhere. I think we should be permitted to use crewed and uncrewed in place of manned and unmanned on aviation related articles. Spaceflight related articles have already moved entirely to crewed, and aviation is actually no different. I don't believe there are any situations where crewed/uncrewed cannot be used in place of manned/unmanned. We already use the industry standard flight crew for the people flying the planes on commercial operations. This is in contrast to cabin crew who are non-flight personnel and who wouldn't count towards a craft being crewed or uncrewed. Not sure why aviation would be special compared to all other aspects of vehicular operations (spacecraft, tanks etc.) Canterbury Tail talk 12:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we should absolutely not ban "crewed", thank you for clarifying that. But this proposal is not about banning "crewed", it is about not banning "manned". Contrary to your claim, some aspects of aviation are indeed different from spaceflight. I wonder whether you understand the example I gave: an autonomous air taxi by definition has passengers but no crew. It is therefore manned but not crewed (unlike any spacecraft). Do you have a problem with the use of "manned" in such circumstances? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Steelpillow is right. While "crewed" is gradually replacing "manned" in many areas, aviation has yet to see any such change. Terms such as Unmanned aerial vehicle are still the WP:COMMONNAME of aircraft without a pilot. A vast majority of sources still refer to aircraft as "manned" or "unmanned", as opposed to "crewed" or "uncrewed" for spacecraft. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs, so we have no grounds to force any such change in terminology. The reason Wikipedia has stopped referring to spacecraft as "manned/unmanned" is because the sources have done so, not because Wikipedia itself was trying to move away from gendered language. Until we see such a change in sources, we should not force any such change. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)