Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

WikiProject Aircraft talk — Archives

This page is an archive for old talk relating to WikiProject Aircraft. New questions, comments, and discussions should be directed to the project's talk page.

Regarding the table, since we are using the style attribute, it's occurred to me that perhaps it would be useful to define styles in the wikipedia style sheet for tables that go on the left top of the page (tables for aircraft, and for other WikiProjects would follow the same principles. I was thinking of something like this:

table uses full width of page
table uses full width of page (as necessary), body text doesn't flow around it

fullwidth tables would be useful for big tables inside the body of the page.

table at left of page
tab is fixed size at left of page, body text flows around it

I don't know where leftflow tables would be useful, but they might be, somewhere.

table at right of page
tab is fixed size at right of page, body text flows around it

rightflow tables would be useful for the tables that go at the top right of pages, both in descriptions of aircraft, and in many other places.

I've just had a go at fixing the Dassault Rafale article. It had far too many large pictures and bad formatting. It still needs major work in the copyediting departments and needs going through to make it properly NPOV. David Newton 20:13, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It reads like a cut'n'paste from another source, too. Hopefully a PD one. —Morven 21:03, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've gone round and fixed the image format, tweaked the data table, and worked on the first paragraph. Boy, does it need work. —Morven 21:27, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Units Using {Aircraft}

Is there a good way to standardize this information? Look at F-4 Phantom II to see what I'm talking about. As it stands right now, it's a very large, ugly list (with lots of holes). Are there any suggestions for the best way to standardize this information and make it prettier (with each nation's Air Force roundel and what not)? Anybody? Bueller? If no one has any thoughts, I'll work on a mock-up idea. (I may do this anyway.) RadicalBender 20:59, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd be interested in your ideas for presenting this. Right now we don't even have articles for pretty much any air force unit worldwide ... —Morven 23:42, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I question the need to have long lists of units on the main page itself - I suggest that List of units which have operated the F-4 Phantom II (or some less wordy alternative!) would be better. But either on the main page or a sub-page, some sort of standard way of presenting this data would be nice. --Rlandmann 05:23, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Somewhere in the last week or two of categorising, I came across one or two entries that presented the list of units in a neat table. I can't for the life of me remember what articles they were, though! I have a feeling that they were British aircraft of around the time of the Second World War... Does anyone have any idea of what I'm talking about? I thought that this layout would make an excellent standard to adopt for this info. --Rlandmann 08:03, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK - answered my own question - it's in Bristol Blenheim. Great work! Anyone have any problem with this bring rolled out more widely? --Rlandmann 08:08, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

List of years

Is there any interest or merit in doing a "year in aviation" (or "year in aerospace") series, like has been done for list of years in science, list of years in film, and so on? Geoff 22:46, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As I recall, someone began one. There are, I believe, years through most of the 1980s defined. —Morven 23:41, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So there is. Silly me. Geoff 23:51, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

However, feel free to get this going again! —Morven 01:14, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Units order

I dont care which set of units come first, but I oppose having two standards. As I per any major change like this it must at least go through some sort of review eitehr way. Greyengine5 23:43, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's not a change - it's been the reality of the data tables for a while. The templates are just a tool to help implement the already existing standard. I originally suggested this as "best practice" back in late February, and I and others have implemented both "imperial first" and "metric first" tables consistently ever since.

You yourself have edited the project page dozens of times over those six weeks and have never taken exception to this until now.

Of course, if others here feel that we should go back to a single metric-first or imperial-first table, then by all means we should. For now, however, this accurately reflects what's going on "in the field".

To me, when listing the specifications of an aircraft, it makes sense to express them in the units that the machine was designed in. But it's not a big deal.

Other opinions? --Rlandmann 03:20, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Its becasue I dont think either row is "better", the proper way could just as easily be reveresed. That and this 'standard' has not been uniformly done. Greyengine5 15:18, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Rlandmann. It should probably list first the units the machine was designed in. This is similar to whether or not articles should use "humor" or "humour." The general consensus is for English articles to use the English spelling and not otherwise. I think we should use the same here. RADICALBENDER ★ 16:38, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Very well then- it will be perpetuated. The issue here was thats its not worth having two different orders when the number listed first aren't in better spot then then second. I would be just as happy if metric was listed first for all of the tables. (or all the other way) Greyengine5 17:55, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It would be nice to be clear about which units provide the raw data. But even if we know the raw data, I don't think we will really be able to indicate this clearly. When we use parentheses, the reader can sometimes think that the author puts the raw data outside the parentheses. Although it is not a reliable indication. I often see parentheses used merely to contain the authors non-preferred units.

Our decision to divide the columns into metric and non-metric means that we cannot indicate the raw data simply by putting one column before the other. This is because specifications are rarely 100% metric or 100% non-metric. In addition, wikipedia authors (including myself) are sometimes misinformed about the raw data.

It is an interesting question, but I don't have an easy answer. We might wish to have a default suggestion (my preference is metric first too, although there are other strategies) but I am fairly happy to leave it undefined as we do with spelling.
Bobblewik 18:32, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, a good many aircraft have some components designed or specified in more than one system of measurement. However, I prefer the de facto standard of using Imperial/US measurements first for those aircraft built in the USA and Britain, since that is what people expect and what will be found in official publications about them. Wikipedia's role is not to convert the United States to the metric system. —Morven 18:56, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I would not have considered having a standard division by nation. It might have had some relevance for aircraft half a century ago (although a lot of pages refer to old designs), but it is not a relevant distinction today. You might argue that metric goes second for for British aircraft up to 19xx and goes first after that date, but it all gets a bit complicated.

Many aircraft that are considered as American are very metric because of a pro-metric stance of the manufacturer (the US military often specifies metric, and manufacturers use metric to make foreign sales easier). Some supposedly American aircraft are direct purchases from 'metric countries' (e.g. HH-65 Dolphin), or are copies (e.g. the US T6A Texan is a copy of the Swiss Pilatus PC9).

Then there is the issue of collaborative projects which almost certainly use metric by default. That is not so common for the US, but it is very common with the UK.

The use of metric in British aircraft factories is now more similar to European usage than to USA usage. If you think of aircraft such as the Tornado, Jaguar, Puma, Gazelle, Eurofighter, Merlin, Airbus etc, I would have thought that a UK table would have the same order as their German and French counterparts.

I would also suggest that British people of today are so exposed to metric units, particularly for official/military/engineering applications, that I can't support a hypothesis that metric priority would be considered odd in Britain.

There may well be an assumption in the minds of some people that the distinction between metric and non-metric can be mapped onto the distinction between USA/UK and the rest of the world. However, in reality the correlation is so poor as to be futile and has been for decades. Even if you said it was a distinction between US aircraft and non-US aircraft then I would not agree, but might be less adamant about it.

Anyway, although I think nationality is not a good basis for choice of column order, I don't really care much. So I will accept the choice of others.
Bobblewik 14:36, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just so that you know, you're wrong about the UK and metric units. I routinely use imperial units in everyday life, and I'm 24 and British. I know plenty of other people who do as well. In scientific work metric units are the standard for many, but not all. For example, the electron volt is not the SI unit of energy, and yet it is commonly used, the same with the Bohr radius as a unit of length. I consider putting a metric version of the British units odd. David Newton 04:07, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft
I removed the section stating that thrust to weight is unitless but it was reverted. My reason for removing it is that it is not unitless anymore than power to weight is. Thrust/weight is actually acceleration which can be easily demonstrated by arithmetic (F=ma), or by practical demonstration (try loading your car with 4 fat people and note the effect on acceleration). The identical unit names (pound force and pound mass ) misleads people to think that they are the same.

UtherSRG reverted the page (see history of the page), stating BW you are incorrect. in F=ma, m is mass, not weight
I don't want to get in an edit war, or a debate about the ambiguity of the word 'weight' and the units kg or lb (I have seen plenty of these on the internet and they are tedious in the same way that I have no interest in arguing about the ambiguity of the word 'hot' for high temperature and large amount of heat). I don't care if an aircraft is said to be:
thrust: y pounds
weight: x pounds
thrust to weight: z (units left off)
but it won't work in metric units. The suggestion that metric authors should use kgf is not acceptable because the metric unit for force is the newton.
thrust: x kN
weight: y kg
thrust to weight: z kN/kg(units shown)

The section is incorrect and I think it cannot be left in the present form. It certainly cannot reject the usage of kN/kg by metric countries. Are there any better suggestions than to simply delete the section again?
Bobblewik 15:26, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Bobblewik, User:UtherSRG was right that you were incorrect. Thrust-to-weight is unitless. This is because thrust and weight are both forces. Specifically, the weight of an object is the force of gravity on it.

You also say "The suggestion that metric authors should use kgf is not acceptable because the metric unit for force is the newton.". This is misleading, because you seem to have confused metric units (those based on the meter) with SI units - they aren't the same thing, for example the second is an SI unit but not as metric unit, and the erg is a metric unit but not an SI unit. The newton is the SI unit of force, and a metric unit of force. The kilogram force (kgf) isn't an SI unit of force, but it is a metric unit of force. It is also an established unit for denoting the thrust of aero engines, and as such is used by reference books on aircraft. -- Cabalamat 17:37, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Weight will be kg" doesn't sit right with me. Thrust-to-weight is dimensionless regardless of which side of the ocean you live on. In fact if it were up to me, I would either rename the "Weights" table section "Mass," or specify weights in "lb_f" or "N", but this would ruffle a lot of feathers. Fleminra 21:48, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Understandable trumps pedanticism. This means that weights will be specified in kg. Thrust to weight will be unitless. We have been using kN for thrusts, but I would not be opposed to using kgf (and annotating it as plain 'kg', too) since this is what is found in most reference works. And yes, we all know that all of this is pedantically incorrect, but it is comprehensible and we all really do also understand what is MEANT. —Morven 03:41, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Someone knowledgeable about MiG history might want to check contributions of a newbie. He is "moving" articles about MiGs from "Mikoyan-Gurevich" to "Mikoyan" without any explanation and by copy-pasting them. Nikola 07:19, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The table, and the article titles

My vision is find, and I find the table template fairly readable. But the version presented under Convair B-36 is far superior in terms of readability, and would certainly be preferred by vision-impaired people. The table ought to use the standard Wikipedia font, like the taxoboxes for articles on animals.

The other issue of concern to me is the titles of the articles. I don't claim to be an expert in the subject, but I feel that articles like XB-70 Valkyrie ought to be B-70 Valkyrie or even B-70. I know that in the case of XB- and YB-articles the planes never got past the XB/YB stage. But you don't see seperate articles for XB-, YB-, and B-stages of planes such as the B-17 Flying Fortress -- information on the XB-17 and YB-17 are given under a single B-17 article. It shouldn't be too difficult to note under the B-70 article that it didn't make it past the XB-stage. Furthermore, the Northrop B-35 didn't go past the YB-stage, but it's still listed as a B- aircraft.

The practise of putting the mane after an aircraft (XB-70 Valkyrie versus XB-70) I can understand, but putting it's maker before if their is no usual name Convair B-36 is a rather dubious practise. Perhaps a B-36 as a redirect is acceptable, but in my opinion, B-36 and B-70 should be the main articles, not Convair B-36 and XB-70 Valkyrie. --Ingoolemo 19:15, 2004 Jul 13 (UTC)

The problem arose because the "small print" version of the table was created under an older Wikipedia "skin" where the scaled-down text was not so much of a problem. I'm going to change all the templates to remove the 72% scale tag, and have been (irregularly) weeding it out of articles as I come across them...

The principle of "least surprise" has been the dominant force in the evolution of the naming conventions, hence "XB-70". For US military aircraft, this generally means including the X- or Y- prefix, depending on just how far along the development path the aircraft got. The B-35 was a mistake (by me) and should conventionally be placed under YB-35.

"B-35" and "B-70" aren't very descriptive, and I agree with the wisdom of slightly more descriptive titles. Personally, I'd like to go with "North American XB-70 Valkyrie", but that's not the convention that's been agreed on, and I can appreciate the difficulties that that approach can create... Anyway, "Convair B-36" is a lot nicer than "B-36 (bomber)"! --Rlandmann 04:54, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Should we also remove the font-family specifiers? I've been unhappy with specifying a different font from the beginning, but didn't find it important enough to argue about. Now that the default skin uses a sans-serif font, the font specifier is effectively useless.

Part of the issue about names is that redirects are (irrationally, in my view) considered second-class citizens, existing only to increase the chances of accidental linking, but which should be 'snapped' to point directly to the target article whenever possible. Thus there is a great pressure to place articles at the most commonly linked-to name, rather than a 'correct' name. —Morven 07:14, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

Yes - I agree that the font-specifiers should go too. Does anyone know whether the style section of the table can be stored in a Template? If so, it would have the benefit of making all tables across the project changable simultaneously, as well as looking a lot neater for users making their first edits... Worth experimenting with.

While we're here - the footers are also looking awful in the new skin. Some of their functionality has been replaced by Categories, but their main strength is still in condensing the "see also" section as well as providing navigation back and forth through the series. Any ideas from anyone how to tidy these tables up? --Rlandmann 22:19, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The point isn't to look pretty, but it certainly is distracting when stuff in an encyclpædia is hideous. They don't really need tidying up that much, but one thing should happen: we should have 'related series' line to include the nearest four or five, and in the case of planes like the XB-39 be included on the page for the B-29 too, so that users can easily navigate back from the B-39 point.--Ingoolemo 03:58, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)

Just clarifying - what do you mean by "related series"? Is this different from the "Designation series" line?

When an aircraft belongs to several designation series, some of us have been including multiple lines on the table, which I think works well (see F-4 Phantom II for example).

On the other hand, when an aircraft occupies several designations in the same series, things can get messy. Most of us have been creating an extended version of the "series" line stretching backwards past the first designation and forwards past the last one - but this can sometimes create a very large line (see Miles Master). In many cases, I think that the best solution will be to create a separate (stubbish) article for the minor designation (like the XB-39), outlining its differences from the type covered in the main article, and referring the reader there. --Rlandmann 06:19, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Putting table style info in a template used to work but was broken in the MediaWiki upgrade. The WikiProject Albums used the Template:AlbumboxStart to define a standard infobox table style. With the upgrade, the template was ignored so everyone now uses {{subst:AlbumboxStart}} which is no help if you want to change the style of all tables (though it does mean you don't have to paste/edit lengthy style stuff when starting a infobox). Eg., for the Genesis Live album, the broken albumbox can be seen in this edit [1]. Geoff/Gsl 01:03, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

When I was trying to translate the table into Japanese, I got some questions.

Maybe I'm too serious but why not use the web safe color for background such as "#99ccff" insead of current "#87CEEB"? (I'm not sure if we can use external style sheets that will be better solution...)
I guess the reason why using the units "miles" and "mph" is that they are more familiar with the non-aviation-related people in the US (and UK, etc) than "nautical miles" and "knot", isn't it? (Anyway I'm gonna use "nm" and "kt" in the Japanese version because we aren't familiar with both of them)
So I should use "TAS", right?
Isn't there any place for "Mach number"?

If you've already discussed these points, I'm sorry to disturb but please let me know where to read.--Marsian 09:15, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)

The contributor who selected the table colour originally went for "color:skyblue" but discovered that not all browsers supported that. He then selected the hex equivalent.
Yes
Yes. In most of the (non-specialist) references that form the basis of most of our articles, this is generally the only figure quoted anyway (and probably only approximately at best)
There should be - this needs to be incorporated into the tables, most logically as a row spanning both columns (as has been done by various contributors in a number of articles already, though I can't think of an example off the top of my head). I'm going to assume this is a non-controversial update and will go and do it now...

Good luck with the translation! :) --Rlandmann 13:22, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I'm glad to know that I didn't miss the points... and that my English worked. :) --Marsian 14:35, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)

Firstly, some entries use the term 'mile' to mean 'nautical mile'. If there is not a policy on this, then I call for one. Unfortunately both versions of 'mile' are used in maritime and aerospace domains, so it is impossible to use context to resolve the ambiguity. Google will convert 'miles' to km at a rate of 1.609 and 'nautical miles' at a rate of 1.852. If you notice that the word 'mile' is being used when 'nautical mile' is intended, please correct it.

Secondly, I am not too keen on the use of 'nm' to mean nautical mile because it conflicts with the metric unit nm. If you have the space, I would prefer nautical mile to be written in full. It is not such a big deal though because of the huge difference in size.

Thirdly, I think that there is little benefit in presenting values that are merely the division or multiplication of two other values in the table. The values appear to be esoteric, a reader that is sufficiently interested can divide one value by another. It just makes the table more complicated. In many cases, the entries have not been completed anyway. Could we drop them from the standard table?
Bobblewik 15:17, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wow, I've forgotten nano meter. Thanks. Then, how about using "NM" for Nautical Mile when less space is needed? Or do you feel this unnatural? (in Japanese, there's another way to use 海里 or カイリ both mean nautical mile).

I read some discussion about weight. In fact, in Japanese Wiki we are discussing which should be used: kgf for weight, N for weight, or kg for mass...

Bobblewik's opinion about deleting T/W sound logical. In addition, I guess there's another problem. Which weight should be used to calculate? Good(bad?) example is F-15E. --Marsian 16:31, 2004 Jul 17 (UTC)

Earlier discussions about Thrust:weight, Power:mass, and Wing loading suggested using "loaded" weights for these values. I've also never liked these entries in the table - I think they're too esoteric for a non-specialist readership - a fact that I think is borne out by Bobblewik's observation that only truly dedicated (fanatical?) contributors ever bother filling this information in. Anyone else in favour of dropping them? --Rlandmann 03:49, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think thrust-to-weight and wing loading are important in giving an idea of how manouvrable an aircraft is. (Like 0-to-60 and top speed give an idea of how fast a car is). I don't find them esoteric, and in any case, so what if they are? Wikipedia should be as detailed as people interested in the information in question want it to be, which means some topics will be covered in esoteric detail -- which is a good thing. -- Cabalamat 23:07, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think those values should be written in the table. But I agree with you on "Wikipedia should be as detailed as...". Now I'm considering it might be better to show some detailed information, separately from the current table. Such as: take-off and landing distances, max L/D, wing aspect ratio, tapor ratio, swept angle, incidence angle, dihedral angle, airfoils, wheel track, wheel base, quantity of fuel, etc. Too esoteric? That's why I guess these should be separated. But obviously they work in some situations. For example, when you want to know whether an F-16C could land on the small airfield near your home... --Marsian 23:40, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)

I guess it's also important to remember that what we're trying to write here is an encyclopedia, not necessarily "the last word on the F-16 on the internet". I guess one of the guiding questions should always be - what's the depth of coverage on this topic that we could expect to find in an off-the-shelf encyclopedia of aircraft? The other problem, as I see it, is that of uniformity ("least surprise") - the basic data table/"aerobox" should be a set of information that should be available and applicable for practically every machine that we cover here. More detailed information will generally only be available for the very best-known types. Finally, the aerobox is already so big that it overwhelms all but the most detailed articles - I for one am not keen to see it grow further.

So yes, I think that anything more detailed than what we've got in there now should be included elsewhere, perhaps at the bottom of the article. The human spaceflight articles do something like this already. --Rlandmann 00:02, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Most entries use mile to mean the "international mile", and I'd suggest that we use this in place of nautical miles wherever possible. Once again, it comes down to a question of what's going to be most familiar and significant to a non-specialist reader. Anyone who cares about nautical mile values is likely to be able to convert these from "international miles" if they are so interested --Rlandmann 03:49, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've never heard of the "international mile". Is it the same as a British mile (approx 1.609 km)? -- Cabalamat 23:07, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes. --Rlandmann 00:02, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Table Format

Ugh, the table is an eyesore. Not that I have any better idea. Is there any plan to replace it? -N328KF 20:21, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)

We're always open to suggestions! What do you find displeasing about it in its current form? --Rlandmann 22:12, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Personally I'd be happy if we removed tables altogether from the aircraft articles and went back to using unnumbered lists for the characteristics. But perhaps that's just me. -- Cabalamat 23:07, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mainly the color and font combos. Also, the fact that it doesn't seem to render consistently across browsers and platforms. -N328KF 04:03, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

I agree entirely... it's a bit funky at narrow page widths in Mozilla (it overlaps the bottom tables sometimes), and the colors don't change to match a user's selected wikipedia theme. I've actually been creating new entries (like Hawker Sea Fury and Aero L-39 to show an example) with the straight-line (history -> specs -> misc info) format that I saw in an older entry. It makes more sense to follow the style of aviation publications like Jane's, both in terms of consistency and readability. I know that I for one don't check out specs as I read history, I want one or the other at a time.eric 05:09, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

One other thing -- it makes it difficult to place a second image in articles. It adds an awkward look. See Multimission Maritime Aircraft now that I have added a table--both images, IMHO, have a role in the article, and now it looks sort of awkward until I decide what to do with it. -N328KF 11:34, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

Though not necessarily so - take a look at Short Sunderland for an excellent counter-example. A question - how do other Wikipedia infoboxes look to you? --Rlandmann 12:39, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Sunderland example is good, but it just goes to show that the table itself is actually quite empty and fills an awful lot of space. Also, at 800x600 (can't go assuming users have wide screens!) the infobox fills half the viewable page.

The other infoboxes look equally slapdash to my eyes, though they certainly serve their function in some cases. I just think that in terms of information presented they don't work as well as they should. Why not standardize a table of contents with a link to specs at the top? That way people looking for specs can hop right to them if they're at the end, and the page flow will be more consistent. -eric 15:07, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Could you make an example of what you had in mind? Are you talking about just moving the current table to a section below the article, or breaking it up, and, for example, leaving the picture at the top and and regular table below? ( or removing the data from the table all together?). What Im asking for is a actual page for comparison, to understand the specifics of the design changes your talking about. Greyengine5 15:34, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

I previously mentioned my Hawker Sea Fury and Aero L-39 entries as examples of what I think makes sense. The table doesn't really work effectively in terms of structuring data - a list does that better, I think - and the font size is often too small for practical reading. (Yes, my eyes are fine, but the 12" screen hurts.)

So, I think the content of the tables should remain, but be worked into a different, more readable (and editable, in most cases) format. Even if it's not a major deal, the advantages of the wiki code rapidly go south on us when you've got huge chunks of table at the top of every entry. eric 15:50, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Ah ok thanks (missed the earlier links). I did mean more of a conversion of a existing tabled page but that example is ok.

The current table is, of course, a compromise between a huge technical spec list, and a smaller summarized list like you have in the article.

One solution to the tension between these objectives might be to move the current table to its own 'technical spec sub-page' and allow it to expand, while retaining a more concise version on the main page.

I could see a major change in standard like this being acceptable, as it would offer something to those that want to add stuff to the table and those that want to remove stuff.

However, given the huge amount of work involved in changing over, I don't see any big change happening unless other members were for it and the new design was arrived at as part of a general standards overhaul. Greyengine5 17:08, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

Regardless of what happens, I think we could eliminate the font size and type specifier in all aircraft tables. The more default settings there are, the more browser independent (including text-only and PDA compatible) it may be. People seem to be for that, and nobody seems to be against it.

As far as table-at-the-side versus section-at-the-bottom is concerned, I don't mind either way. I have often thought that blank table entries are just clutter or wasted space. Since web pages in general and Wikipedia specifically are always being modified, I do not particularly see a lot of benefit in things that look like 'under construction' place holders or links waiting for a page. I do like the column alignment of values in the table version though, so perhaps some alignment might be useful if we were to go to the section-at-the-bottom style.
Bobblewik 18:27, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've already taken the font size and specifier out of the templates, since yes, that's what people seemed to be saying.

I also like values to be in columns - I find them much easier to read that way. I have no particular preference about the side-vs-bottom placement of this data, though. I'm quite ignorant of cross-browser and cross-platform issues here, and will happily defer to those who know more.

I (mildly) disagree about the value of empty entries though - I like the "known unknowns" to be (quietly) stated. Which is another reason why I think we shouldn't go into too much detail with a standard table, for which we won't find the information for many types. --Rlandmann 21:37, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think its only ok to leave a empty tabe if its at least partially filled in, otherwise it just adds clutter to the page. Having the data in a table does make it easier to read, but if were going to keep it where it is now I think theres some issues - especially with the font and size values removed.

It makes the table even worse in terms of article formatting, especially for low resolution screens. It also creates even more destandardized tables, but since it corrects the readabilty problem its justifiable.

As far as getting rid of the table and moving all the data out- thats probably unwanted and not the best idea for readabilty either (given the volume of data). One alternative might be to 'split' the current table and leave a much smaller 'upper' with a picture and limited info on top, and the 'full spec' table to down below the article.

This would minimize the work in converting a page, solve some of the article formatting issues, and allow the full spec table more page width. By keeping the smaller picture and info on top, the information most people are interested in still easily availble (such as year and type). What do people think of something like this? Greyengine5 15:40, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)

I have just noticed that a similar question about the benefits of a table appeared on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. See Album box necessity?
Bobblewik 18:52, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mailing list anybody?

Am I the only one who finds it difficult to navigate the discussions here? What do people think of setting up an email list for the project (open to all), with discussions archived here on a regular basis? --Rlandmann 00:02, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, a web-board? --Rlandmann 08:00, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm new, but that makes a heck of a lot more sense than this mishmash.eric 05:10, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Yes AND no. Yes, because Wikipedia talk pages are a PITA to use for in depth discussion. No, because decisions are then being made 'off line' by a select group rather than in the open. Archiving mailing list discussions here would go part way (but not all the way) to solving this. However, I'd say that it would certainly help improve the quality of the articles, which is the main thing. —Morven 16:08, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Morven's comments regarding a possible mailing list: it would promote the existance of a "cabal" who wouldn't necessarily always act in the open. It'd be nice if talk pages included a web forum where one could make threaded comments; perhaps the mediawiki software could be updated to include this? -- Cabalamat 16:27, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I *had* worried about the "cabal" aspect - which is why I suggested religiously archiving discussion here. Secondly, since the "cabal" would be made up of the people who actually make regular contributions to a small and well-defined subject area. I'll wait a couple more days for comment, but put in a feature request in the meantime. --Rlandmann 21:05, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You are kidding, right? Email lists are a dreadful hangover of an outdated era. The technology became obsolete close to 10 years ago, and its usability these days is severely limited. Why on earth would anyone volunteer to subject themselves to a mailing list when there are vastly better communication methods at their fingertips? Methods that are open to all, I might add. I'd rather use Netscape 1.0 on Windows 3.1 than inflict yet another mailing list on my poor overloaded, spam-ridden inbox. A wiki is to a mailing list as an Airbus A340 is to an Avro Lancastrian. Tannin 21:22, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Personally I'd take the Avro, becauese older is generally cooler, but that's mostly beside the point. Just about any system would be preferable to what is currently in place. -eric 21:35, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Point taken. I'm thinking that a web-based forum would be far better - in terms of providing the threading that seems to be the main problem with the "butcher's paper" approach we have now, and in terms of linking to and from the wiki. I sincerely hope that we can get a threaded forum implemented here within the pedia, but I don't think it's too bad a thing to have it hosted elsewhere, at least in the interim. --Rlandmann 21:40, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's a shame that such 'outdated' technology still works better -- with a properly functioning client, something that most fail to produce -- than most of the 'newer' alternatives. I find my email lists quite usable indeed, compared to many of the alternatives.

However, I do believe that Wikipedia needs to have better support for threaded discussion. This is possibly the #1 most needed feature for the software, IMO. If we're suggesting mailing lists, Tannin, it's because at least they work fairly easily and well by comparison.

I also prefer the permanent record of email; malicious or just plain nutty people can easily lay a false trail of confusion through the Wikipedia record, and while sure, we have article history, for any discussion forum of reasonable activity, that's too painful for anyone sane to deal with. —Morven 07:16, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

Variants?

I've poked around looking for information on variants (prompted by the three entries for various similar Lancair Columbia models) and couldn't find whether it was preferred to merge them into one article (i.e. Lancair Columbia) or separate (Lancair Columbia 350, Lancair Columbia 400, etc). On a side-note, Rlandmann, I've changed the two aircraft you placed in the Category:Home-build aircraft to Category:Homebuilt aircraft to correspond more closely with the actual terms used in the General Aviation community. I'm planning to go through any other kit aircraft and add them over the next few days. -eric 16:28, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

There is no "policy" on this - for now, I think we're just happy to be getting articles! I think that length should be the determining factor here - and few variants are written up in sufficient depth (at the moment) to necessitate separate articles. If it were me, I'd be putting the article under Lancair Columbia with redirects from the variants until and unless any of them dominates the article to the degree where splitting it off seems better --Rlandmann 21:26, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia Tables

Why oh why do tables on Wikipedia, other than tables of contents, still have such hideous appearances? Why have they not been delightfully styled up like all other page elements? mnemonic 03:54, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the software that powers the wiki still needs tables to be styled individually. It seems that it was possible at one stage for table styles to be set with a template, but this feature is now broken and/or no longer supported.

As you can see above, we're currently discussing the appearance of the WP:Aircraft table, and the desirability of having a table at all, as opposed to a specifications section. Please tell us what you think! --Rlandmann 04:25, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the Standard Footer

I personally think that the standard footer is chunky, ugly, and a bit too narrow. Regardless, I think that the table format for it is somewhat unnecessary, and I've whipped up a non-tables version with the same sort of content. The added benefit of using the =-stle headers is that the 'Related content' section will now list in a TOC, if it appears.

Of course this doesn't make sense to immediately go back and switch everything over, but a gradual process towards simplifying the footer in new and existing pages makes sense to me. If this catches on, then perhaps reformatting or splitting off the stats table would make sense as well - I like the idea of using a sub-page for a detailed statistics section. -eric 19:33, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Messerschmitt Me 163 proposed footer revision:

Straw poll - Web forum (was mailing list)

Just a quick show of hands here - if a web-based forum were set up to discuss issues relevant to this WikiProject - who would be interested in participating? Please place your signature below by 00:00 1 August. --Rlandmann 09:44, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For it

Rlandmann 09:44, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
N328KF (Joseph) 13:34, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)
eric 15:55, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
✈ James C. 17:50, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)
—Morven 23:16, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Not for it

Abstain

Bobblewik 13:31, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC) (I do not feel qualified to predict what I would do).
Greyengine5 15:12, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC) (although depending how it was done, i might be either for it or against it)
Cabalamat 19:58, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC) (I'm not sure whether I would be able/prepared to devote much time to it).

Comments/Questions:

Would this be on the wikipedia or on some third party site? Are we going to wait until the wikipedia has a forum feature or try and find some sort of free web forum- and if that, which one. Greyengine5 17:09, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)

it's been suggested that the talk pages be revamped, however i do not think this will happen soon. a simple off site forum could be made freely on tripod.lycos.co.uk using phpBB. ✈ James C. 17:50, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)

Ok well thats pretty reasonble, I changed my vote to 'abstain'. Depending on how it was actually done I think it could work well, though it might have some problems. I think if the forum had admins, I wouldn't want it to be people who were not wikipedia admins.

Also, if wiki ever comes up with a better forum system, I think it be important to be able transfer the history over. It might be worthwhile to see if any other projects have done this and get some input from them as well. Greyengine5 19:29, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)

If there are more votes in favour than against by the time the poll closes, I will be seeking an off-wikipedia forum to have this forum hosted. I'm open to suggestions, but my thinking is leaning towards Delphi forums - http://www.delphiforums.com largely because of their long-term stability.

Membership would be open to all, and a prominent link from this page to the external forum would be maintained. Discussion from the forum would be archived back here regularly (how regularly will depend on the traffic - weekly? monthly?

I'm not going to hold my breath until similar threaded discussions are available at wikipedia, but if and when this feature becomes available, the external forum would be shut down and discussion moved back here.

Finally, there's nothing more "sinister" about wikipedians using an external forum to discuss aspects of a project than if we were exchanging private email, or chatting via IRC or any other IM network (or meeting in person over a cup of coffee). In fact, a web forum ensures a transparency and accountability that none of those other modes of communication do. --Rlandmann 22:34, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A quick look at delphi makes it look extremely full of ads. I'm inclined to go with James' phpBB suggestion, I've used it in the past and it works pretty well. I actually have (way too much) webspace available, along with a pretty short url. So, no ads, and no costs. I'd be glad to install it (actually I'll play around with it now, just for kicks.) -eric 23:50, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, that literally took three minutes to set up (www.aeronaut.ca/wikiforum/), if you'd like to see how it runs and if it's preferable to the existing wiki talk or delphi forums. -eric 00:08, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone have an in with anyone like airliners.net? Maybe they wouldn't mind us having a forum for ourselves, considering what we're doing ostensibly benefits them as well? I have a membership there already, dunno about the rest of you. -Joseph 03:13, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)

I checked out the phpbb one- seems pretty nice. I wonder if there's some GPL'd forum software wikipedia could incorporate in the future, so projects could have this hosted off wikipedia. In the meantaime though, is there a way to have this one send updates when somone posted a new comment there? Greyengine5 13:17, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)

So, it's settled, then? -Joseph 21:51, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)

Yes - I've just made a post there for anyone who cares to take a look --Rlandmann 23:09, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)