Jump to content

Talk:List of individual aircraft

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

list format

[edit]

I think this should be a single list. This allows it to be fully sortable so that you can easily find any entry based on any of the column entries such as name, type or use. The current section headings should be made an extra column to the list can be sorted on that too. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. There are a couple of problems, though. Currently two entries are in two different categories; how would that be handled? Also, I would like to keep the War column, but that would be a waste of space for most of the entries. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the war could be shoehorned into the Organization/company column, expanded to included to include military branch. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another possibility is to split it into two lists, military and civilian, as there are around 200 distinct entries in the category and subcategories. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest columns for: Name | Type | Owner | Period | Notability
The war then becomes the relevant period. Military, commercial, etc. organizations go in the same column as private owners. "Notability" is basically the "Notes" column with a clearer indication of what the notes need to establish. If a given craft needs two entries, the question has to be, why? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A Role column has been added. The roles used in this column are explained at WP:AVLIST. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria

[edit]

An aircraft must do more than exist and have an identity to be included here. I suggest modifying the lead to clarify that these are "famous individual aircraft", "notable individual aircraft", or perhaps "individual aircraft of encyclopedic interest." Pburka (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It did briefly say that these were "individual aircraft which have articles" [on Wikipedia] but that was reduced to a hidden comment in the page code. The way I see it is, if an aircraft is notable then it should have its own article, while if an aircraft is not notable then it should not be listed here. Thus, any machine listed will, by virtue of being notable, also have (or deserve) its own article. Certainly, an indiscriminate list of machines which have no notability would carry into the millions and fall foul of one policy or another. A basis from which to move forward, I will rescue the previous wording. Any editors who wish to expand the scope of the list can then seek consensus here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Being in Wikipedia is not why the aircraft qualify. That's putting the cart before the horse and not something worded that way in any other list I've seen. I agree with Pburka and have changed the wording accordingly. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, there are aircraft which don't have articles but are probably still notable enough, such as the City of Warsaw, flown by the Adamowicz brothers. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the grammatical convention for online content is "on" not "in". Secondly, you shoot down an argument I did not make. The causal root of both an article and an an entry in this list is the craft's WP:NOTABILITY. If a craft is notable it should have both, if a craft is not notable it should have neither. The logical consequence is that if a craft should be in this list, then it should have an associated article, and vice versa. However they may not necessarily be created at the same time, so in practice we may temporarily find the one and not the other. For example, if you can establish the notability of say the City of Warsaw then this may go in here as a red link until its article is created and that turns the link blue. Rather than explain in the article lead this rather complicated idea that even you are struggling with, it is simpler to summarise the intended outcome, that this page lists craft which also have an article. One could alternatively say that it lists notable individual craft. But what you cannot do is open the doors to non-notable WP:LISTCRUFT. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're arguing about my edit comment? That's world-class, time-wasting nitpicking. FYI, Wikipedia:About uses "in" and "on" interchangeably. Wikipedia is an article in Wikipedia (the encyclopedia) on wikipedia (the website). Nobody says there are hundreds of thousands of articles on Encyclopedia Brittanica. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing about such edit comments is indeed world-class, time-wasting nitpicking. I would submit that mistaking a remark about a change in the content of an article for a remark about the associated edit comment is nearly as unfortunate. Encyclopedia Brittanica is principally a set of dead trees tied together inside a dead animal and stuff goes "in" those. Wikipedia is essentially an online resource and stuff goes "on" those: "I read about it in a book then I read more about it on a web site." Perhaps we are more positively fortunate that the edit in question has since been overwritten. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

fictional aircraft

[edit]

I'd like to merge the fictional list into the main list, since those currently listed are real machines which have been given a fictional persona, like any film actor. But other fictional machines, such as Thunderbird 2, are wholly fictional. How can we best distinguish these two classes so that the distinction can be sorted on? One suggestion might be to have two classes, "Fictional" and "Fictional persona", but I am having trouble convincing myself. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I now think that the real aircraft used for filming are genuine names and not "fictional" - only the stories about their capabilities are fictional. So I think it would be better to class them as "private" unless and until someone can come up with a neat alternative. Somehow, "film prop" doesn't have the right ring to it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather rename the section "Aircraft in fiction". (Besides, they're not really private, more like private/commercial.) Clarityfiend (talk) 08:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there's already a List of fictional aircraft, which already includes Airwolf and Blue Thunder. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As real aircraft types with particular names and articles on Wikipedia, they meet the criteria for this list. Their fictional capabilities and exploits meet the criteria for the fictional list. So they belong in both lists. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC) For example the fictional Blue Thunder was not a modified Aérospatiale Gazelle, the real one is, and there are separate articles for the real machine and the fictional stories. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC) [Updated 09:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)][reply]
Cut it out. You're making a mess of things. You've got the wrong link for Aerodrome, there's no reason to delete the information on the Akutan Zero, "a/c"? (that's air conditioning), 14-bis is the primary name according to its article, not Oiseau de proie, etc. As for whether to include Airwolf and Blue Thunder here, this seems like a good time to employ WP:THIRDOPINION. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip-offs. Anything else I missed? I'll check my sources to see if the 14-bis article has got it right, may take a few hours, and I think this aircraft opens up an issue: where a machine has both a name and a designation, which do we give priority to, or should we have separate columns so that either can be sorted on? By all means seek wider discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft is a good place to start, also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose including fictional aircraft. Sherlock Holmes has been played by real actors. Does that mean he breaks the bounds of List of fictional private investigators? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This subsection is headed "discussion begins" not "poll", in which case a) a straw vote is out of place and b) on what basis does the discussion not begin until here? The above vote suggests that this is in fact intended as a straw poll. WP:VOTE gives some advice on such polls and it seems that even the simplest of things, such as what the poll is about, have not been addressed. For example there is a real example of the Bell 222, registered as N3176S and named Airwolf. There is also a fictional Airwolf that appears in TV stories. Contrary to what I previously assumed, they both share the same article at Airwolf (helicopter). Blue Thunder (helicopter) is a more complex issue because two real machines were given that ID, along with the fictional one. I think it would be helpful if we can gather wider editorial views less formally before defining any specific issue for a poll. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are seriously splitting hairs. Would it make the slightest difference if I instead wrote: "I oppose including fictional aircraft, citing the following analogy: Sherlock Holmes ..."? Also, they're real machines, but unremarkable ones outside their movie/TV roles. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Let's split that into two:
      Consider for example the Red Baron and his Fokker Dr.1 triplane Serial 425/17. These rose to such fame in the fictional imaginings of Snoopy in the cartoon Peanuts that "Curse you, Red Baron!" became a popular catchphrase and created a false impression in the popular mind that the Dr.I was his mainstay machine. Then there is Little Nellie, one of several Wallis WA-116 Agile autogyros built, which was made famous by its appearance in a James Bond film. Similarly, H.G. Wells often included fictional accounts of his own doings in his tall tales. By your arguments these real aircraft and real people should therefore be treated as fictional. I don't see arguing against that error as splitting hairs.
      A movie/TV role can make a real aeroplane notable. Any craft is not notable outside its reason for being notable, that is a self-evident truth and no argument either way. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We have two distinct lists, and for very good reasons. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please can you clarify: are you opposing the listing here of the fictional Airwolf or the listing here of the real Bell 222 which is also known as Airwolf? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm opposing another of your ridiculous calls to merge two standalone articles.
As to Airwolf, then these are two independent topics. Does either of them meet notability in a particular interpretation? If so they should be included. The fictional Airwolf seems likely to be so, the real aircraft has no more (AFAIK) notability than any other 222. Notability is not inherited by actors, or prop vehicles. It might make a footnote in the fictional list, certainly in any specific Airwolf article, but there's no other visible reason to list it with individual notable aircraft. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying what you oppose. Just to be clear, here is the article as it was when I started this particular thread. Note that it had two tables, one of real aircraft and one of "fictional aircraft" of which both those listed also have real personas used in the filming. It was only later that Clarityfiend (talk · contribs) spotted the separate List of fictional aircraft article - you will find that in the above conversation if you care to look. I cannot help but wonder whose is the "ridiculous" comment there . And thank you too for your comment on the Bell 222 Airwolf, it is the first logically expressed objection to my actual proposal that I have yet seen. I'd be grateful too for your thoughts on the other sub-topic immediately below here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We also have List of fictional aircraft. We should keep it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody suggested we shouldn't. Do you have a discussion point to make? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Some individual machines do not have their own article but have a significant presence in other articles. Obviously, just because a machine appears in a photograph is no reason to include it here. OTOH the de Havilland DH.88 G-ACSS Grosvenor House was a famous race-winner, has been restored, and several replicas of it have also been built. Despite this it does not have its own article but shares it with the other examples of the type. Should we allow examples like Grosvenor House in this list, and if so then where do we draw the line and say no, it is not notable enough in its own right. For example what about the prototype Supermarine Spitfire K5054? Or an airliner involved in an air crash that has its own article? Or the helicopter made up as Airwolf, etc. etc. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to leave out Glamorous Glennis. However, crashed airliners have several lists already, e.g. List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft, List of accidents and incidents involving airliners by airline, List of accidents and incidents involving airliners by location. Unless the aircraft has its own article, I wouldn't include it. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Role splitting

[edit]

Why are you differentiating bombers from military? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AVLIST. I am replacing "military" with roles more suitable for sorting on. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another problem

[edit]

Why were Bossi-Bonomi Pedaliante and Budd BB-1 Pioneer moved to B, while MacCready Gossamer Albatross is under G and Langley Aerodrome under A? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking is that say MacCready Gossamer Condor is the type but Gossammer Condor is the name/ID and I was listing alphabetically by name/ID. The Budd Pioneer is also the BB-1 and is one example of why I queried above on the priority of IDs or names in the first column (Your view on that would be appreciated). As you have pointed out, "14-Bis" is typically given as the ID for the Blériot 14-Bis type, but I put it back under B for Blériot for the sake of goodwill while the principles for this list are still taking shape. The word "pedaliante" for the Bossi-Bonomi simply means "pedal glider" and I assumed it was descriptive of the class rather than a name - one might argue that it is also the proper designation, but that would need sourcing. These examples illustrate well why I tagged the whole article as lacking citations - they are the only way to settle these borderline cases. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sources indicate that Pedaliante is its name.[1][2] This also solves the inconsistency of listing some entries under their designer or builder's name and others not. The "Blériot" 14-Bis and the Santos-Dumont number 6 also need to be dealt with. Note that they're listed in List of Santos-Dumont aircraft as "No. 14-bis" and "No. 6", respectively. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now, what was I saying about the need for citations?. They need to go in the article. [Update: now done] My sources for the Santos-Dumont do not include "No." That may well be a bit of Wiki editorial license - unless other sources differ. 12:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
[edit]

How are the following not closely enough related to merit inclusion in the See also section?

Each is (or contains) a list of individual aircraft. Further, even though many don't yet have articles, they merit them, e.g. Zeppelin LZ 13. So just because nobody has gotten around to it, does that mean the reader should be kept in the dark? As for List of surviving examples of mass-produced aircraft, I split off a few entries from here (and expanded that list) for two reasons. First, this page is getting a bit long, and second, IMO the notability of simple survivors is a definite step down. The alternative is to dump them back here, not ignore them - unless of course you're proposing to delete them all. Further, I'm amused by the fact that Steelpillow fought tooth and nail to keep fictional aircraft here, but somehow thinks a separate list of them shouldn't be linked. That's inconsistent, to say the least. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, now that I look at the second and third lists, there are quite a number of entries that do have articles. Putting them all here would make this list quite long indeed. Perhaps it would be best to split off all airships? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are also articles on a lot of roadable aircraft as well. The choices are to add them here or to link to their list. They can't just be swept under the rug. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Guidance may be found at MOS:SEEALSO and also here. It is "is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense" and links "should be limited to a reasonable number." Several of the linked lists were not of individual aircraft per se, for example lists of types none of which happened to enter production and some even including types which did - whether in terms of design configuration, some manufacturer or some operator, To take just one example the List of British airships includes several classes which were manufactured in numbers. So it looked like every list cascading down from Category:Lists of aircraft was going to find its way in. As Ahunt pointed out in their edit comment, these are not appropriate here. That leaves only one candidate, the List of surviving examples of mass-produced aircraft, so OK if @Ahunt: is agreeable, we can restore the See also section with that one entry. I can only apologise for missing it in the long mess of inappropriateness.
As for the potential length of the present list, I can only say that light is perhaps beginning to dawn on its creator. But you cannot simply split off entries from this list if it is to remain true to its title. You should either restore them here or move this article to a List of prototype, one-off and low-production aircraft and examples of types that are still in production or perhaps split off further sub-lists to shrink the title to something more focused. Indeed, if every entry were to find a home in such a sub-list, the function of the present list might instead be adequately served by a navbox placed at the bottom of every sub-list article.
— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure I am good with that one entry, just want to avoid a very long list at "see also". Ironically this could have been mostly addressed with the old "aviation lists" template, but we aren't allowed to use that on all aviation articles anymore. - Ahunt (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"See also" now restored with its one entry. What about list articles included in the old template? They should still be allowed to display it, and this article ought to be on it if it isn't already. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

There is a discussion about this and related articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#List of individual aircraft. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spruce Goose

[edit]

Can anyone tell me why the Spruce Goose is not in this list? Downsize43 (talk) 06:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because you haven't added it yet (and because I forgot it when I started the list). Clarityfiend (talk) 06:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_individual_aircraft&oldid=1203316021"