Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Lists of surviving aircraft

I'm centralising this discussion here, since it seems to be proceeding in two separate places... --Rlandmann (talk) 07:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft

Seems there's a dispute over the naming of articles in Category:Survivors (aircraft). I've started a centralized pagemove discussion at Talk:Chance-Vought F4U survivors#Requested move. Please take a look and give your opinions. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All these pages are also up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surviving aircraft. LOL. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 20:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I quit, I Give-up, am done with this nonesense - as far as I am concerned, the survivors series can be deleted (and I wish it was) so nobody else can use my hard work for their projects Davegnz (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed all as keep. I hope I haven't offended anyone (if I have, drop me a note on my talk page) by the breech of coi by using the admin tools when I had also participated in the discussion, but this is a situation where I felt comfortable invoking WP:IAR. I felt it was best to close it because the discussion had reached a point where it had ceased to be constructive, and several parties, including the nom who'd since reconsidered, were starting to get to the point where successful teamwork isn't possible. We don't need to waste time beating each other up when a) the outcome is obvious and b) doing so discourages all involved from spending their irreplaceable time contributing to this project. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was a fair move. However, it would be a good idea to come up with a clear and coherent statement about how these articles are notable – or else we're going to face the issue again by others who don't see them as relevant. The nom made a good point on that issue and I didn't see any really convincing response. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Davegnz has worked hard on these articles and they could be the basis of some good articles. I would suggest that a number of points need to be addressed; the notability of the entries which just needs a clear statement (although we need to understand for example if over 100 P-40s exist the notability of the some of the aircraft listed is suspect), the naming needs to be sorted out as they should be the same as the parent article Foo survivors (the same as other child articles like Foo operators), the fanboy presentation needs a bit more prose and text to make them readable to the users, you would need to already have an interest in the subject to make sense of the entries which would look fine in a warbirds directory but not an encyclopedia. Also need to understand that we do not need a survivors article for every aircraft type only when the survivors sections of the parent article becomes to large. MilborneOne (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to suggest that if an aircraft type is considered historically significant (ie, a B-17), then any surviving examples are also considered historically significant. It's the same kind of thing as historic buildings which are designated as historic landmarks...that designation tends to convey notability (not that this is codified around here, but is frequently a successful AfD argument). Just a thought towards the goal. I fully agree with Askari about coming up with a coherent statement on the subject. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dont have a problem with the type being historically significant but can that be extended to possibly listing all 294 surviving P-51s? (a significant type) MilborneOne (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that the number of existing aircraft left would be related to how significant they are. The Boeing 757 is a notable aircraft, but a list of the survivors (practically all of them) is not notable. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity that the AfD was so malformed and that the nom therefore (wisely) decided to withdraw it. It means that little of the ensuing discussion is terribly useful to working out how to treat this kind of material in future. Like MilborneOne, I reject the idea that any and every surviving example of a historically significant type is inherently notable; especially given the difficulties of defining "historically significant", not the least of which is systemic bias towards military types and types produced in the English speaking world and its "historical adversaries".

It probably makes more sense to think in terms of factors that would increase or decrease the notability of an extant airframe, with some thresholds in place so that "common" warbirds in private hands and wrecks out in the wilderness somewhere are not regarded as notable when there are preserved examples on public display in museums or presented to the public in the air by organisations like the CAF.

How to do this without becoming overly bureaucratic about it - I don't know yet! --Rlandmann (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some good points, especially the quantity of P-51s left in private hands. Maybe in order to get a handle on the bigger picture, we can break it down a bit into levels by which aircraft are considered for inclusion (this approach was sorta how the air accident notability guideline came about):

Certain airframes have been well-written about in air history magazines, such as Sentimental Journey, so such media documentation could easily be argued to convey notability by the general WP policy.
Given that airframes that are in museums will at least be written about in museum literature, and given that they, at least are intentionally being preserved as a legacy and an example of the type, can we agree that these airframes are notable enough to be listed?
Some flying aircraft which are still in private hands have historically significant histories, either because they are documented to be combat veterans or because of subsequent achievements (well known and thus well written about air racers, for instance), and so can we agree that because of such histories these airframes should be included?

These three criteria strike me as being the most fundamental "gatekeepers", if you will, so provide a good starting point of a brass tacks discussion. Can we discuss and agree/disagree on these as initial criteria, and then move on to others? AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a reasonable starting point, perhaps other categories only come into effect if the type has no aircraft in these three categories! MilborneOne (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, (1) is uncontestable; airframes to have received coverage as significant as these are even notable enough for their own articles (and in many cases, should get them). (2) I'm less sure of - the fact that a particular airframe is documented in the literature of the institution that preserves it doesn't qualify as an independent source for notability purposes. Like you say, it can be safely assumed that most of these will be documented as a matter of course in guidebooks (etc); but I don't think we can claim that any and every artifact described in a museum guidebook (all of which are intentionally preserved, by their nature) is notable. But I think we agree that an airframe preserved in a museum tends to weigh in favour of its notability (proportional, I guess, to the stature of the museum). Again, (3) is uncontestable - if it's well-documented, it's notable.

I'll add that in my view, partial airframes and those in the wilderness may be notable if (a) there's no complete preserved example extant, and/or (b) the airframe is individually notable for some reason. Examples that spring immediately to mind are Yamamoto's G3M and the Devastators located on the seabed by the TIGHAR folk. Speaking of TIGHAR, I'd say that "Maid of Harlech" is a good example of not notable - the coverage of this airframe is mostly in the form of news reporting of the discovery, of the kind that Wikipedia is not. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking more about (2), I'd say that an airframe preserved in a national-level museum would be notable, eg NASM, NMUSAF, Imperial War Museum, RAF Museum, Deutsches Museum, Luftwaffe Museum, etc. but those preserved in smaller museums may or may not be so. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some excellent thoughts. Ok, based on these, below I'm starting a subheader as the beginning of the codification (feel free to add to/subtract from/modify). There's actually two issues I'm address with this: a) having a standalone list of survivors and b) inclusion of specific airframes in either that list or in the aircraft type's article. Keep the thoughts coming here, though, as well. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surviving aircraft notability criteria

Justification for a separate list of surviving aircraft: A list of surviving aircraft of a particular model can be justified as a separate article if there is a sufficient quantity of airframes which meet the below criteria such that inclusion in the aircraft type's article would tend to overwhelm it. [Leave this as flexible or suggest a specific threshold number?]
Historic surviving airframes are considered notable if:
- The airframes have been well-written about in air history magazines, such as Sentimental Journey, as the media documentation alone justifies notability.
- The airframe preserved in a national-level museum, eg NASM, NMUSAF, Imperial War Museum, RAF Museum, Deutsches Museum, Luftwaffe Museum, etc. Those preserved in smaller museums may or may not be so, and their notability is subject to discussion on a case-by-case basis.
- Airframes which are still in private hands have historically significant histories, either because they are documented to be combat veterans or because of subsequent achievements (well known and thus well written about air racers, for instance).
- Unrecovered airframes may be notable if (a) there's no complete preserved example extant, and/or (b) the airframe is individually notable for some reason.

AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Threshold number is probably left open for now. Once some criteria are settled on, we should test the "output" of applying them to a few articles before making any actual changes. My gut feeling is that something like 10-15 examples would be an upper limit before a split becomes desirable, but we'll see, I guess.

There may also be something useful in the Individual aircraft section of the (inactive) notability proposal - this section was freely adapted from the Notability criteria for books.

We probably need to make it explicit that we're really dealing with three "tiers" of articles here (1) articles about notable individual aircraft (eg, Memphis Belle) (2) articles/annotated lists of extant examples of types (eg, the so-called "Survivors series"), and (3) sections within articles on aircraft types that list extant/preserved examples of that type. At the moment, we're dividing (2) and (3) purely on pragmatic grounds - article length - as we do with long lists of variants and lists of operators. I think that's sensible, but it's still an arbitrary division, and it's important that we explicitly say so (as you do in your first point above).

Another point - in a couple of places recently, Davegnz has argued that "Survivors" is the specific term within the aviation community to refer to these aircraft. That certainly doesn't gel with my experience, which suggests to me that "B-17 survivors" is not a specific term, and that "surviving B-17s" or "surviving examples of B-17s" is every bit as suitable an expression. Has anyone here encountered the word "survivors" used in such a way as to suggest that it's a specific term rather than a common word? Otherwise, I tend to agree with the comment made during the AfD that "survivors" sounds more like the people who survived crashes in the type... --Rlandmann (talk) 03:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I can't address the formal usage, but I can offer one person's opinion that "surviving B-17s" is the better choice because of the argument given above. AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have certainly never seen "survivors" used to describe aircraft outside of Wikipedia. In the SAR world (where I flew for many years) "survivors" refers to the live people we pulled from aircraft wrecks. We had two rules: 1. we didn't rescue dead people and 2. we didn't rescue aircraft. I think "Surviving B-17s" etc is more understandable to the public readership. - Ahunt (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foo extant airframes or Foo extant aircraft ! MilborneOne (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved from Talk:Chance-Vought F4U survivors

Requested move

Chance-Vought F4U survivors → F4U Corsair survivors — Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) US military aircraft are titled, notwithstanding certain circumstances, by Number and name. The parent article to this article is F4U Corsair, it only follows that sub/related articles would be named F4U Corsair X. — Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Also involved in this proposal are:[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Support - Per nom. - BillCJ (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The current project naming conventions have proved themselves over time. - Ahunt (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename something else — When I came here, initially I thought it was an article about people who had survived crashes in these aircraft. Perhaps List of surviving foos (e.g. List of surviving B-47 Stratojets or List of surviving Boeing B-47s, whatever the consensus is) would be less ambiguous? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename something else Agree with Twas Now, I thought these were about people who survived the aircraft(?). If they survive deletion, List of surviving foos seems much clearer. Tassedethe (talk)
- user Tassedethe has made a fool out of himself - aircraft survivors has been the accepted term in the warbird community for over 50 years - all he has to do is look at any projectwiki aviation article and there is a section named "Survivors - so his comments about changing the name survivors to something else is irrevelent Davegnz (talk) 14:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't appreciate your comments. Please remain civil when participating in these discussions. I don't care if the 'warbird' community has used this term for 50 years, to me it suggested people who had survived crashes, just like 'Titanic survivors' suggests people who survived the sinking of the Titanic, not multiple ships called the Titanic. Tassedethe (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Actually, Davegnz, I was the one who suggested this, not Tassedethe. I don't see how naming an article unambiguously is foolish, though. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leave the names alone named correct Davegnz (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Each should match the format of the parent article. I'm ambivalent about the "List of" appendage. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I have nominated each and every one for deletion. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the nominations have little if any chance of success. What a waste of time. Andrewa (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the AfDs have been closed citing among other reasons the snowball clause. And I didn't do it. Andrewa (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative names

I'd suggest renaming along the lines of Surviving F4U Corsair aircraft. I thought of List of surviving F4U Corsair aircraft, but these articles are more than mere lists, and I wouldn't like to see content removed until they were lists. Andrewa (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List articles do not have to merely be a vertical sequence of items. There can be a lot of prose in the article that gives a background on the things being listed (such as the featured list of Chinese inventions). That being said, a "List" article doesn't need "List of…" in the article name: see, for example, the featured list Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium). Here are my proposals, which I think covers every suggestion so far:

(List of) surviving Boeing B-17s
(List of) surviving Boeing B-17 airframes
(List of) surviving Boeing B-17 aircraft
(List of) surviving (Boeing) B-17 Flying Fortresses
(List of) surviving (Boeing) B-17 Flying Fortress airframes
(List of) surviving (Boeing) B-17 Flying Fortress aircraft

The parts in (parentheses) are optional, pending discussion. Refer to these by number, if you'd like. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions

Per the rules concerning naming articles: Where there are many names, none of them clearly the most common, use manufacturer and number - this is the most common way of identifying military aircraft (see Janes All The World Aircraft) - I do not know why projectwiki aviation has to go against 100 years of aviation standards - but if editors want chance lets do it completely:

Chance-Vought F4U survivors to F4U/FG-1/F2A-1 Corsair - F2G Super Corsair survivors
Boeing B-29 survivors to B-29/PB2B Superfortress/Washington/Super Dumbo survivors
Boeing B-17 survivors to B-17/PB-1B/PB-1W/PB-1G Flying Fortress / Dumbo survivors
Consolidated B-24 survivors to B-24/PB4Y-1 Liberator - PB4Y-2 Privateer survivors
Douglas A-20 survivors to DB-1/A-20/P-70 Boston/Havoc survivors
Douglas A-26 survivors to A-26/B-26/A-26/JB-1 Invader survivors
Lockheed P-38 survivors to P-38/F-4/F-5 Lightning survivors
Curtiss P-40 Survivors to P-40 Hawk/Tomahawk/Kittyhawk/Warhawk/Superhawk survivors
Messerschmitt Bf 109 survivors to Me Bf 109/HA-109-K1L/HA-1112-M1L/Avia S-199 Mule survivors
North American B-25 survivors to B-25/PB-1 Mitchell survivors

Lets not forget:

North American P-51 Survivors to P-51/A-36/F-6A - Apache/Invader/Mustang survivors

- Lets not forget the F-4 - I can think of 10 different aircraft named F-4 pick one!

Again per Wikipedia:Naming conventions: Where there are many names, none of them clearly the most common, use manufacturer and number - end of story! The survivors series are named correct per wiki rules Davegnz (talk) 14:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. - BillCJ (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "wiki rules" in question I guess are Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), which does state Where there are many names, none... as quoted. But it's about naming the main article about an aircraft. Perhaps it can be argued that the same convention should be applied wherever the aircraft name appears in an article name, but that's an extension of the rule, it's not what the rule actually says, and we don't always follow this logic in other article naming conventions. Andrewa (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), " In general, best practice is probably Manufacturer, followed by either Number or Name, whichever seems to be more common " - what is more common B-17 or Flying Fortress - I can name thousands of books with the word B-17 in the title - many of these same books do not need to be further identified as B-17 Flying Fortress - I was trying to standardize the survivors series as to one format which is directly from the naming conventions.

I am told to name on encyclopedia that uses this naming convention (ie MFG then designation) and the worlds authority is Janes ALL The World Aircraft) uses MFG then common designation in there books. take a look at other known publications:

It should be noted that even the US Military rarely used the designation Flying Fortress except in advertisement Davegnz (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term survivor

It's been pointed out above that the term survivor as used in the article names is standard terminology in "warbird" circles. That's relevant but it's not the whole story. We need to cater for all readers, not just specialists in this area, and that's the general principle of WP:NC as well. Andrewa (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

maybe you are so right - lets get rid of all the terms used on wikipedia that do not make sense to someone outside their level of expertise - lets see, I suggest we eliminate the word "Play-Off", Touchdown", "Field-goal" from all the football sites, lets eliminate the word automobile and car because we might have some readers in New Guinea that do not know what a car is. (—unsigned comment left by Davegnz (talk · contribs) 17:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

My point being, if a reader is not knowledable in a certain area then just maybe they have to ask a question which in tern give them knowledge which makes one knowledable in an area (be-it sports, travel, or aviation)

The suggestion is not to remove the word "survivors" from the article altogether, only from the title. You can include it in the prose. The term "survivor" is not explicitly understood to mean "surviving aircraft". — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well put. Andrewa (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's as good an example of a straw man argument as I've ever seen, but apart from being amusing it doesn't seem to be at all relevant. Please sign your posts. Andrewa (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and with all the above discussion, I now think the articles should be moved to "List of surviving X aircraft", where X is, as I've said above, based on the parent articles. Therefore Chance-Vought F4U survivors → List of surviving F4U Corsair aircraft. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so in terms of my issues list below, that seems to be: Go with List of...; Go with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft); Rephrase ...surviving... aircraft. I'm happy with that. Others? Andrewa (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. List of surviving F4U Corsair aircraft sounds good. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we are starting to clarify that an article is all aboutr lists then Twas Now needs ot heed his own recomendations when he changes names of the articles he created to "A List of" then he can discuss others formats - for example:

New York Islanders records to A List of New York Islanders records

Boston Bruins recordsto A List of Boston Bruins records

Anaheim Ducks recordsto A List of Anaheim Ducks records

Atlanta Thrashers recordsto A List of Atlanta Thrashers records

Kanada-malja to A List of Kanada-malja

Colorado Avalanche records to A List of Colorado Avalanche records

Player salaries in the National Hockey League to A List of Player salaries in the National Hockey League

If anyone cares, adding the wording A List of makes the title unweildy and extremely long - plus I do not thing Twas Now will follow his own suggestions.

I noticed that hardly anyone cares what the title of the article is compared to the overwhelming negative reaction TWAS Now gernerated when he suggested this mass deletions - Since the majority are silent (basicly ignoring this nonsense) I vote that the naming of the article remain as created (ie Chance-Vought F4U Survivors). Is short, describes accuretly they aircraft involved and uses and accepted aviation industry term.

As far as the word survivors - some major points need to be made:

The aircraft are over 50 years old (this includes the B-52).
Some have have Survived WWII.
The have Survived the great scrapping drives of the 1940 & 1950
Some have Survived Korean War
Some have Survived the 1960 Soccer wars
Some have Survived Vietnam War
Some have Survived A-Bomb Test
Some have Survived being targets (airborne as well as ground)
Some have Survived 50+ years of Civil Aviation
Some have Survived Aviation Racing
Some have Survived sitting forgotten on a battlefield for 50+ years before being recovered
Some have Survived being restored, crashed, restored etc...
Some have Survived sitting on a pole for 50+ years

In the case of the Boeing B-17, approx 13,000 aircraft were produced - there are only approx 50 Survivors (or less then .5%) the term survivor is indeed appropiate. Davegnz (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is arguing that they are not "survivors"; we are saying the term is misleading, and the term "surviving… X …aircraft" (or something similar) is more accessible to non-enthusiasts. In other words, more people who aren't warbird enthusiasts will know what these articles are about! As for matching the parent article, that is pretty much a must. Many of us have already said that the aircraft naming convention should be re-evaluated after this discussion, and if the decision is to rename articles, for instance, from B-17 Flying Fortress to Boeing B-17, then we can rename the "survivor series" in the same way. I, for one, would probably support that change. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate issues

This is just another way of looking at the (helpful IMO) list of possible article titles above, more comprehensive but less concrete.

Should these articles exist at all? Resolved in the affirmative by the AfD.
Should the titles start List of...? This doesn't seem to be of great concern above but now is the time to decide.
Should the aircraft name within the title follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) (and if not, what)?
Should we use the term survivors within the title, or something else (and if something else, what)?

There are also more general issues, such as whether the existing guidelines can be improved. Any time we resort to WP:IAR we should see whether the rules can be improved without excessive instruction creep.

IMO we should try to resolve the remaining three of these immediate issues before closing this RM. Interested in any others. If we need more time we can and should relist at RM. Andrewa (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a likelihood of consensus above on List of surviving F4U Corsair aircraft as the new name. In terms of wider issues this means:

Should the titles start List of...? YES
Should the aircraft name within the title follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft)? YES
Should we use the term survivors within the title, or something else (and if something else, what)? NO, we use the phrasing ...surviving... aircraft... instead.

Progress! Andrewa (talk) 07:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before WE declare progress - I suggest the following test - Google P-51 Survivors - also, if we change the title to Surviving P-51 (etc...) then someone is going to have to go through every aviation article and change the subsections from Survivors to Surviving Airframes or something as the term Survivors is not considered acceptable according to some editors.

From the dictionary - Survivor

Survivor (n) - 1. a person or thing that survives.

-------------------------end of story... (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the guideline Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Naming conventions: "The name or title of the list should simply be List of _ _ (for example list of Xs)." Therefore I agree with your earlier statements, Player salaries in the National Hockey League should be renamed List of player salaries in the National Hockey League (but not A list of..., that's not what we're suggesting). Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions: "Article naming should reflect what English speakers easily recognize...the names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this change goes thru, then I will gladly help in going through articles to change subheaders from Survivors to whatever. It's a simple task for WP:AWB. Also, your definition of survivor demonstrates the ambiguity that leads us to suggest the title change. If a survivor is "a person or thing that survives", then is B-17 survivors a person that survives a B-17, or a B-17 (thing) that survives? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so we're not unanimous on the use of survivor, not yet at least. I think we have progress just the same. Do we have consensus on the two other issues... list of and the use of the aircraft naming convention?

It is of course good to get agreement, but bear in mind that consensus as we use the term here doesn't require that everyone agree. Andrewa (talk) 03:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Andrewa for your insightful breakdown of the immediate issues facing these articles. As a gauge of whether consensus exists, and to what degree, perhaps the participants in this discussion could indicate their positions below? I'm also taking the liberty of adding a fifth question, since it's already been raised in the post-AfD discussions on the main WP:AIR talk page (which I transplanted to the top of this page). --Rlandmann (talk) 05:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Search for consensus

Should these articles exist at all?'

Resolved in the affirmative by the AfD.

Should the titles start List of...?

Y - these are annotated lists; they don't describe or explain a topic. --Rlandmann (talk) 05:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Y Agree. Andrewa (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Y Agree...if for no other reason than we need to be consistent with the larger style, where lists are called "Lists of..." AKRadecki^Speaketh
Y Checked other wiki pages and found "Lists of solo albums by The Beatles", "Lists of video games" ect... - in agreement that a name change to "List of Chance-Vought F4U survivors" would follow wiki rules and would be acceptable. Davegnz (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Y Aye, as stated far above. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Y per Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Naming conventions lists are titled "List of foo". - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Y Clearly an annotated list. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should the aircraft name within the title follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) (and if not, what)?

Y - it seems crazy to have subarticles that are named differently from their main articles. Whether or not the naming convention itself needs changing is another question. --Rlandmann (talk) 05:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Y - not sure it's that simple, but I think it's a good convention to follow for these articles. Andrewa (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Y - I'll go farther...the way the aircraft is named in the list title should match how it is named in the aircraft article title (and that should match the naming convention). AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Y "it seems crazy to have subarticles that are named differently from their main articles. Whether or not the naming convention itself needs changing is another question. --Rlandmann " Agree that the naming conventions need to be looked at - why have different standards for foreign aircraft vs US Manufactures: Messerschmitt Bf 109, Avia S-199 vs S-199 Mezek, Mitsubishi G4M vs G4M Ichishikirikkou, Fiat G.55 vs G.55 Centauro, Supermarine Spitrfire even Curtiss P-40 vs P-40 Tomahawk, Kittyhawk, Warhawk? Need to adopt on standard across the board - the best solution would simply be: Primary MFG & Official Designation Davegnz (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Y Should match the main article (but I do think the main articles should be renamed to include the manufacturer). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Y After this is done we should next look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft). If that is later changed, then these articles can be moved again, no harm (the move log for these pages has been getting quite a workout lately!) - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Y As per naming convention, agree no reason why that convention should not be discussed but these articles should agree with it as is at this moment. MilborneOne (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Y The established WP:AIR naming conventions should be followed. While I’ve never liked WP:AIR's unique approach to designating U.S. aircraft, changing that guideline is a separate issue; if it gets changed later, well, then we’ll have to change these, too. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should we use the term survivors within the title, or something else (and if something else, what)?

N - "Survivors" is an ambivalent and potentially misleading choice of word. I like "Extant" the best, but "Surviving" is probably a more accessible term. --Rlandmann (talk) 05:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
N - Survivors here is at best a technical term (and even that is disputed) not in general usage, and confusing to those outside of a particular circle of enthusiasts. It should not be used in the title of an article of general interest according to WP:NC. Surviving... aircraft seems the best phrasing yet suggested. Andrewa (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
N - Surviving is better; Extant seems too pretentious and technical...why not make it simple, such as List of remaining B-17 Flying Fortresses? AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Y Survivors is an industry term and is found in any standard dictionary (as stated above): Dictionary - Survivor(n) - A thing that survives. I find it interesting that Andrewa states "Survivors here is a technical term" but we should not use it. Davegnz (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm glad you find my comment interesting. Of course, all I'm saying is that we should not use it in the article name. There are many other instances of article names avoiding technical terms in favour of common terms, dimethyl ether for example. Andrewa (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Or dihydrogen oxide? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
N "…surviving…" or "…remaining…" are better (in other words, easier for non-enthusiasts to understand, without corrupting the meaning behind it). Perhaps we should also use "…airframes" or "…aircraft" at the end. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
N per Davegnz. The definition of survivor is "a person or thing that survives.", That's ambiguous, what is the list about, people or things? "Surviving...aircraft" is my preference.- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
N to remove ambiguity I had suggested Foo extant airframes or Foo extant aircraft in earlier discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
– “Survivors” is certainly common among historical aviation enthusiasts, but the context is then generally understood; that usage, though, might therefore be considered borderline jargon, so “Surviving” might be clearer to the general reader and is just as good. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should these lists include any and every surviving airframe?

N - There's a range of reasons why a list of any and every airframe is problematic - these include the fact that Wikipedia is not a directory, a database, or a memorial. There are also issues with Verifiability and Original research, and perhaps even the privacy of private owners. We need to identify and apply some thresholds. --Rlandmann (talk) 05:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure it's possible or necessary to generalise... decide case by case is my feeling. Andrewa (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
N - The notability guidelines discussed above will only be recognized by the wider community if they see that we are recognizing and consistently using them. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Y Rlandmann is wondering about the privacy of the owners - the information regarding the ownership of these aricraft can be verified through public records (FAA, JAA & NZ) (which is a accepted Wiki Source) FAA.Gov - N numbers Davegnz (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
N If a brief description of each aircraft can be provided, such as "fought in the Battle of Midway", then list it. For other aircraft that didn't really do anything but sat in a hangar, mention them as a whole (e.g. "there are fifteen other Boeing B-17s" and include refs to a few reputable B-17 warbird directories). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
N I agree with Twas Now. Unless the airframe is notable enough to have its own article, like Enola Gay, or has enough of a distinct history, "the only airframe to do this or that", "the airframe saw action in the Battle of Midway", etc. Otherwise just list as a whole. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
– I concur with Andrewa here. It depends. Certainly if it’s going to be a separate page from the main article, it doesn’t need to be as restricted as when it’s a section of a main article itself. If the latter, one would expect few entries and certainly the sort of material Twas Now recommends. On the short end, if the requirement for notability is that it merit its own article, then why bother? What Trevor is suggesting seems to me to be best addressed by simply a short list of “notable examples” (surviving or not). Very few examples of even the most-produced aircraft types ever become individually “famous”, so if we’re going to restrict it to that, the issue of having separate “survivor” sections – much less separate articles or lists – is rather moot. This is essentially the issue laid bare by the nominator of the AfD that I mentioned earlier. If we’re convinced that there’s a “middle ground” (as was asserted by all the “keep” votes), then we need to develop fundamental guidance on what makes a “survivor” notable, per se. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a range of reasons why a list of any and every airframe is problematic - these include the fact that Wikipedia is not a directory, a database, or a memorial.

If WIkipedia per Rlandman is now going to eliminate such information that I state that every (and I mean EVERY) article that deals with only aircaft that only had 1 or two airframes that were created be deleted as well - again, according to him, we are not a database so this useless information should be eliminated.

Maybe we should also censor the rest of wikipedia - lets eliminate all of the Beatles songs that do not notibility, lets eliminate all of the Disco Groups (they certainly do not have notability) - this discussion of notibility was beaten to death last year and you people lost - get over it

As far as Twas Now - I mentioned numerous article that he published - nothing in these article are notible and most of the information is useless for a stand-alone article I thing a mass review of his work needs to be done. I just wonder if the rest of these editors who want to destroy anothers editors work can stand the same scrutiny and abuse that is heaped upon the survivors series

At least my artilces have references and can be properly verified - AGAIN, HOW MANY OF THE OTHER EDITORS CAN MAKE THAT VERIFIBLE CLAIM.

I HAVE ALSO NOTED THAT THE SURVIVORS SERIERS HAVE BEEN MOVED AGAIN WITHOUT A CONCENUS OF ALL THE EDITORS OF WIKIPEDIA -

AND RANDMAN - WHAT ARE YOU DOING FOLLOWING MY EDITS LIKE A DOG LOOKING FOR A BITCH IN SEASON - I MAKE SEVERAL CHANGES AND ALMOST IMMEDIATLY YOU ARE CHANGING MY WORK (SEE P-26) Davegnz (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Going to adress several points here:~~
~~Survivors is an industry term and is found in any standard dictionary (as stated above).~~
~~Dictionary - Survivor(n) - A thing that survives~~
~~I find it interesting that Andrewa states "Survivors here is a technical term" but we should not use it -~~
N Rlandmannis wondering about the privacy of the owners - the information regarding the ownership of these aricraft can be verified through public records (FAA, JAA & NZ) (which is a accepted Wiki Source) FAA.Gov - N numbers
Y Checked other wiki pages and found "Lists of solo albums by The Beatles", "Lists of video games" ect... - in agreement that a name change to "List of Chance-Vought F4U survivors" would follow wiki rules and would be acceptable.
~~"it seems crazy to have subarticles that are named differently from their main articles. Whether or not the naming convention itself needs changing is another question. --Rlandmann "~~

Y Agree that the naming conventions need to be looked at - why have different standards for foreign aircraft vs US Manufactures: Messerschmitt Bf 109, Avia S-199 vs S-199 Mezek, Mitsubishi G4M vs G4M Ichishikirikkou, Fiat G.55 vs G.55 Centauro, Supermarine Spitrfire even Curtiss P-40 vs P-40 Tomahawk, Kittyhawk, Warhawk -

~~Need to adopt on standard across the board - the best solution would simply be: Primary MFG & Official Designation Davegnz (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~

~~Davegnz, could you please sort your comments under the appropriate headings above?~~

Organized. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of the general naming conventions is a quite separate issue, and not part of this discussion. As it happens, I agree with you on this point (and always have), but the solution is not a set of unilateral page moves, nor a strategy of trying to name a certain group of pages at odds with the existing convention. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership, hostility, and disruption

In response to a series of hostile, bad-faith moves by Davegnz (talk · contribs)—check the edits on 17 September 2008 from 15:55 to 16:05 UTC (10:55 to 11:05 EST)—, I am going to remove myself from this discussion. He has made these disruptive moves merely to illustrate a point.

Aside from his spurious arguments of why he thinks the "survivor" articles shouldn't be moved, he has continued to attack articles I have created, saying they should be moved or deleted (the latter came during the AfD, even after I had rescinded my AfD). Whether or not this is true is irrelevant to this discussion. Mine being named this or that has no bearing on what the aircraft articles should be named. He also called for a wholesale "mass review of [my] work".

Davegnz is exercising a strong sense of ownership on these articles. The only reason I think these moves have not gone through is because of his dissent. Virtually everyone else has agreed that "List of" is necessary, that the term "survivors" is misleading to non-enthusiasts, and that these lists should match the parent article. In addition to this, many of us think the naming conventions should subsequently be reevaluated, which would be in Davegnz's favour. I had even given provisional support to his suggested naming convention ("Boeing B-17" instead of "B-17 Flying Fortress").

I wouldn't have a problem with a random editor passing by an making these moves, but due to Davegnz's little vendetta against me, these are in bad faith and poor taste. I have never attacked Davegnz nor have I had any reason to. I was not taking part in this discussion because I have a deep conviction that the name he gave these articles is wrong, but because I think Wikipedia—and particularly articles about niche topics—should be accessible for general readers.

Incidentally, I agree with the move of the hockey records articles (and have moved all other NHL team records to include "List of"), but the move of Kanada-malja to List of Kanada-malja [sic] makes absolutely no sense—the article is about a trophy. That would be like renaming the article on Apple pie to List of Apple pie [sic].

I will continue to watch this discussion, but I will no longer participate. Anyway, I am fairly certain I know which direction it will go (consensus does not require unanimity), and I think my views are pretty clearly expressed above. Good luck. I can only hope Davegnz doesn't jump to attack the next editor he doesn't agree with. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twas, don't take it personally - this is how everyone who disagrees with him is treated. He's been editing WP for about 18 months now, and nothing has changed - not the ownership, not the name calling, not the purposeful misreading of guidelines, and not the disruptions to make points without any discussion whatsoever. Be sure to check back to read his PA response to my comments - It's sure to be a doozy! It always is! - BillCJ (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - it was Twas Now's complaint above that "broke the camel's back" and precipitated the RfC. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links to talk page discussions

Since this page seems to be intended to compile all the discussions in one place, I thought I'd include links to them here.