There is currently a wide-spread edit dispute concerning whether Hong Kong and Macau should be listed under the People's Republic of China or as separate listings in airline destination lists, examples of such conflict include Asiana Airlines destinations (hist), South East Asian Airlines destinations (hist), and Singapore Airlines destinations (hist).

Previous discussion may be found on User talk:Huaiwei#Airline destination articles. Huaiwei asserted that he was "the one who first came up with the first systematic list which listed airports under the continent-region-country-city convention", a convention that "has remained consistant for a much longer time until someone went about changing all of them without consensus from the community", and that "The country which the two SARs belong to is the PRC. There is absolutely nothing factually wrong about this, and it IS factually wrong to have Beijing etc listed under the PRC while HK is listed separate from it."

I provided the counter-point that "Hong Kong and Macau have always been separate airspace blocks as mainland China", and listing Hong Kong and Macau under PRC in civil aviation lists is a "wholesale disregard for context in favour of political correctness under the continent-region-country-city system." I pointed out that most airlines' official publications currently list Hong Kong and Macau as separate "countries" from China in their destination lists, "and this is the standard Wikipedia should follow, in line with the concept of 'reliable sources'", a proposition to which Huaiwei rejected with the reason that "NPOV is far more important than any policy you dare to cite, including the 'reliable sources' you tried to use to substantiate your point."

I hope to point out that WP:NPOV requires that all points of view be substantiated by reliable sources. With the official destination list of a certain airline listing Hong Kong and Macau separately from mainland China, creating a Wikipedia list with Hong Kong and Macau listed as destinations under "PRC" is original research and should therefore be avoided. Since Huaiwei and I (along with several other participating editors) are unlikely to reach a consensus on this issue by our own, I'm filing this RfC to attract more attention to this discussion. Deryck C. 12:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are two different but acceptable ways to present HK in lists. Under China, because one country, two systems, or separate, as "Hong Kong, China". But never acceptable alone, because Hong Kong is not independent. The source to note is the IATA, which uses "Hong Kong, China". SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• Under China - Per User:SchmuckyTheCat. I understand that some aviation authorities such as the IATA may have treated HK and Macau as peers or equals of PRC, but these articles being considered are compilations directed at general readership of an encyclopedia. Treating HK and Macau as outside China may cause problems: for example, an editor may look for cities in China served by Singapore air, and fail to see HK in the list, and conclude that that airline does not serve HK ... but the reader would be mistaken, because the reader failed to see that HK was down lower in the article, outside the China group. As a compromise, perhaps a separate "China, Hong Kong" and "China, Macau" entry (immediately below the main "China" list) as there is some autonomy. But I think it would better to just leave treat them as any other city in China, for purposes of these lists. --Noleander (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, almost all carriers list the two territories separately on their lists of destinations sort by country. 116.48.87.86 (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• My opionion would be the "seperate but equal" "China, Hong Kong" and "China, Macau" entries would be the most relevant. I wouldn't be so sure that most people would look for HK, at least, under China, given it's long-term status (I might even wonder if the majority of people even know HK is part of China!), but that would be a reasonable compromise. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Separate for those periods when the area was under British or Portuguese rule; as subsections of China for those periods when part of the PRC. Mjroots (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither Hong Kong nor Macau are part of the PRC proper. They have their own immigration guards, rules, passports, and, e.g., the Civil Aviation Department of HK controls HK's own airspace. Flights from HK need to fly to a specific altitude before entering the People's Republic's airspace, or leaving from the People's Republic to HK's airspace. 116.48.87.86 (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Separate HK and Macau are separate customs territories, with separate airspace from Mainland China, and different aviation rules. 70.24.247.61 (talk) 04:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Some form of separation seems apt considering the separate customs etc that these two cities have. Hong Kong, China, would be a nice compromise. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Separate sections as per all other inhabited dependent territories. "Hong Kong" and "Macau" are sufficient as common names, since there is no disambiguation or POV issues. 116.48.87.86 (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As a rule, it should be based on what airlines do. If this is difficult to judge or inappropriate in some way, I suggest that using the entities listed at ISO 3166-1 (but with Wikipedia-consensus naming) is a good and fair outside way of doing it. In this case, I think that the best option would be to separate Hong Kong and Macao out. They are very often - usually, even - treated separately from the Chinese Mainland and notably flights between the Mainland and Hong Kong/Macao are considered international. I think people are unlikely to go to "China" and assume Hong Kong isn't present if they don't find it there. I don't see the need for the "China" in "Hong Kong, China" or "Macau, China", though I don't object to it. Pfainuk talk 13:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • While one might not object to do so, it's going to affect the wider policy across Wikipedia. Should we change all instance of, e.g., Greenland in Wikipedia lists to Greenland, Denmark, and Bermuda to Bermuda, UK? 119.237.156.46 (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that (or indeed anything like that) is a logical conclusion of this debate. Indeed, I don't see any reason why a consensus reached here should apply anywhere outside the specific case of putting Hong Kong and Macao in airline destination lists, since that's how the discussion has been limited. It wouldn't apply to Hong Kong and Macao on lists in other contexts and it wouldn't apply to other territories in any context: in either case, separate consensus would need to be reached in the appropriate forums.

That said, I believe it's fair to suggest that formations such as Bermuda (UK) and Greenland (Denmark) - generally using brackets rather than a comma - are not unusual either on Wikipedia lists or in equivalent lists elsewhere. Pfainuk talk 17:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree if and only if the general rule all across Wikipedia for dependent territories is to use brackets, i.e. Bermuda (UK), Hong Kong (PRC), Puerto Rico (US), etc. The spelling of Macau/o is another thing yet to be settled. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that may just have to be tough luck for you then. A position does not have to have unanimous agreement to become consensus, and this RFC isn't going to decide - and certainly won't be able enforce - such a wide-ranging change. You guys requested comments - well, you've had my comment and nothing you've said has persuaded me to change it.

(As to the spelling of Macao, and for other spellings or name differences, the standard rule for lists is to use the title of the article for each entity concerned - with exceptions as appropriate based on common sense and project-wide consensus.) Pfainuk talk 19:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least as an agreement over all airline destination lists, which is probably something that this talk page can decide on. We got carriers that fly to more than one dependencies. British Airways, Continental, and KLM are such examples. As for spelling, is there any conventions or rules regarding lists? 119.237.156.46 (talk) 05:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Taking AirAsia for example they refer to both Hong Kong and Macau separately from China (source) when looking at flights. However on another part of their website to talk about checkin fees they refer to Hong Kong and Macau as being part of China (source) - therefore listing Hong Kong and Macau as Hong Kong, China and Macau, China respectively sounds like the best bet. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most carriers group Hong Kong and Macau separately from China. AirAsia is no exception at all. And some carriers in fact group them (and Taipei and Kaohsiung) under Southeast Asia instead of East Asia. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because the airlines are going to be inconsistent is a reason to follow the IATA. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

source for the IATA. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The goverening country's name in brackets is a better idea, as for Macau, China need to officially change the spelling to Macao, it looks better, for some reason it feels better and pronunciation wise makes better sense too. 116.71.21.216 (talk) 09:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We use the u spelling for consistency with the article. Parentheses shouldn't be used when the two regions actually use ", China" in international settings. We don't just make stuff up. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Hmmm...looks like "WE" are effin idiots then, with an effin rigid attitude, because there are a number of lists that have the governing countrys name in parentheses next to the place such as Guam (USA), Puerto Rico (USA), now go hunt, as for macau with the U yes it shall remain that way till China or Macau government decide to change that, wikipedia oops...sorry WE will have to as well once that happens.118.103.235.101 (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of short sortable lists of aircraft have been cropping up, both in-page and on their own pages. I have been trying to standardise their format, and am wondering whether this format should be added to the style guide. I have drafted an updated version of this Lists guide at User:Steelpillow/Test.

All comments gratefully received - please post them below here so if it does happen, we won't need to worry about conversations on different talk pages and stuff. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dont have a problem with the format, although it should be made clear it a list of aircraft "types". MilborneOne (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the allowed roles in the list tables need some review. I just added "Reconnaissance" and some usage comments, so the list is currently:

• Airliner (use this for feederliners but not types aimed at the private/executive market or SSTs)
• Bomber (use this for torpedo bombers)
• Commercial (use this for executive jets and specialist mail, agricultural, firefighter, etc. types)
• Experimental (use this for research types)
• Fighter (use this for all scouts, interceptors, Zeppelin killers, etc.)
• Glider (use this for motor-gliders)
• Multi-role (use this only where the roles are of comparable importance)
• Reconnaissance (Use this for general patrol and observation types.)
• Private (use this for homebuilds)
• Transport
• SST
• UAV

But some other roles still need a home, while one or two existing ones may be unnecessary. Below are some that occur to me, along with suggested classifications. Where a specific role gets buried in a more generic one, the Notes can always be used to help disambiguate.

Please add your comments in the relevant subsection below. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary as at 11.57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

proposals are tending towards new Maritime and Trainer roles, SST to disappear. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary as at 16.09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

proposals are now moving towards new Attack and Trainer roles, SST to disappear, Reconnaissance to be renamed Patrol. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary as at 15.30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion has ground to a halt with no clear consensus. I have posted my best shot here for final comments. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary as at 08.43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Further comments posted in the discussion linked above have effectively moved this discussion there. There is a suggestion to replace Commercial with Utility, but a question whether some types may no longer find a home. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary as at 12.49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I have posted my final current suggestion there. Here it is again:

• Attack
• Bomber
• Experimental
• Fighter
• Glider
• Multi-role
• Patrol
• Private
• Training
• Transport
• UAV
• Utility

I seem to be talking to myself now. Unless anybody comes up with an equally complete proposal, or other strong objection to change is made, I shall update WP:AVLIST accordingly. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing summary. as at 08.56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The off-page discussion has been moved below here. Nobody has objected to the final proposal, so this discussion can now be wrapped and the style guide updated accordingly. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These include Ground Attack, Fighter-Bomber and Torpedo Bomber types. They could all be treated as Fighters, or as Bombers, or given a new role of "Attack". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then, there are classifications like strike fighters, attack bombers, ground-attack fighters, close-support and light attack/trainers. Following Kenneth Munson's Blandford pocket encyclopedia we would get something like:

• Fighter typically to include Strike fighters, fighter-bombers (converted fighters), ground-attack fighters (converted fighters).
• Bomber typically to include torpedo-bombers, attack bombers and close support.
• Trainer typically to include Light attack/Trainer unless these were originally developed as air support or fighter types (such as the Folland Gnat).

That sort of leaves the Attack role lying on the floor. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still not sure about "Attack" but were would you put the A-10, if it was an older machine it would be a ground-attack fighter but I am not sure it would be understood. My opinion is not to add more roles unless we really need to at the moment. MilborneOne (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Fairchild A-10 is a close support type (ISTR the first to be purpose-designed as such) and so would be classed among the Bombers. I think most if not all the A-series end up in there. I'd suggest that in the old days the A-10 would have been classed as an attack bomber, as air-to-air fighting is not a role it was designed for. I agree about not adding the Attack role unless forced to. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK understood, support not using Attack. MilborneOne (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about the OV-10, A-29, AT-6, and all those COIN-type attack aircraft?Phichanad (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The OV-10 Bronco is described by Jane's as a multi-purpose counter-insurgency type, while its primary variants have been used for observation, surveillance and FAC, with some air-to-ground use too; we'll have trouble with this one whatever roles we finally go with. I think you mean the Northrop YA-9, which is comparable to the A-10 discussed just above here. The AT-6 Texan was a converted trainer (see thread below) and need not have its own entry in a list. The problem is, if we do opt for the Attack role, where do we draw the lines? Almost every other role - certainly fighter, bomber, patrol, trainer and transport (think Bell Hueys) - overlaps considerably. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To add to that, as I now see [once saw] it the overlaps mean we can sensibly have only one air-to-air combat role (fighter) and one air-to-surface combat role (where, whatever the logic, "bomber" is more universally used than "attack"). Only types conceived for both air and surface primary roles are then multi-role (i.e. excluding fighters with attack capability or attack ships with air-air capability). [Updated - see below] — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What better way to boost one's ego than to publicly contradict what one has just written. It is hard to justify the dedicated attack helicopter as anything else. Both its air-to-air fighting and old-fashioned bombing capabilities are typically pathetic and classifying it as either is quite untenable, Going back to what I wrote further up still, I think we are forced to accept the Attack role. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These include Maritime Patrol, Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) and ASW/Patrol. They could all be treated as Reconnaissance being the primary role, or perhaps have a new "Maritime" role. ASW could be split off to the Attack or Bomber role, but then what about the fairly common ASW/Patrol type? Might it be Multi-Role? There is also Air-Sea Rescue, which I'd suggest is never a type's primary role, with Commercial or Patrol/Reconnaissance being closer. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on Maritime as a role as the type can be either maritime or reconnaissance I don't think we need any more roles. MilborneOne (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have just changed my mind. Looking around I cannot recall ever seeing a dedicated ASW design. I notice that many ASW/patrol/reconnaissance types are simply classed as maritime patrol. The only other maritime role I can think of is air-sea-rescue, which can easily be subsumed into Commercial. Given the discussion below about changing the Reconnaissance label, might it be better to include both reconnaissance and maritime patrol in a single Patrol category and treat ASW as a secondary role? The Fairey Gannet began life as an ASW/strike dual-role design, so could be classified as a Strike aircraft (currently mooted under the Bomber role), with the AEW3 as a Patrol variant. There are some ASW helicopters about but AFAIK these types all have other primary roles. In other words, "maritime" is looking more like an environment than a role and I don't think we need it after all. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think these need a new Trainer role. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. MilborneOne (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some trainers have been heavily modified or has a variant for a light attack or semi multi-role combat capability while still function as a trainer. Like the Alpha jet ATS, BAE Hawk 200, G-4MD Super Galeb, L-159 ALCA among others. I'd suggest a new category LCA (Light combat aircraft). This is somewhat a modern term i think(correct me if i'm wrong) not referring to HAL Tejas. Smaller air forces uses these to compensate for very expensive multi-role aircraft's. Efram23 (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think one new role has to be enough. I'd prefer to see light attack/trainers added to whichever is the primary role for the original type. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flying cars and roadable aircraft could be classified as Experimental or Private, or have their own "Flying Car" role. I'd prefer "Private". "Flying car" can be added to the Notes for sorting on. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. MilborneOne (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are only a few of these, most being large Airliners but with one or two Commercial executive jet projects. Should this role be abandoned and wrapped into the others? "SST" can then be added to the Notes for sorting on. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree use airliner or other appropriate role. MilborneOne (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dedicated reconnaissance designs are quite rare. Related roles include observation, patrol, airborne early warning (AEW), electronic intelligence (ELINT) and electronic warfare (EW) and, perhaps an emerging role, surveillance. The Lockheed U2 was universally dubbed a "spy plane". Observation merges into Commercial. Patrol is sometimes used as a broad classification, OTOH it clashes with maritime in the Maritime Patrol role. For example the Hawker Siddeley Nimrod is a maritime patrol type, despite being a landplane converted from an airliner. I like the idea of changing Reconnaissance to Patrol but I am not sure what could then happen with maritime patrol. I am [was] reluctant to give up on Maritime [but am happy to do so now]. Any thoughts? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC) [Updated 16:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)][reply]

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#Aircraft roles in lists.

Still no comment on whether attack-type aircraft (possibly including ground-attack, fighter-bombers, torpedo bombers and/or light attack/trainers) should be classified under Bomber, Fighter or a new Attack role. Please do add your views. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has ground to a halt with no clear consensus. Currently we have:

• Airliner
• Bomber
• Commercial
• Experimental
• Fighter
• Glider
• Multi-role
• Reconnaissance
• Private
• Transport
• SST
• UAV

I would like to:

• Add a new "Attack" role for types such as Attack helicopters which are in no way either air-to-air fighters or effective bombers.
• Add a new "Trainer" role.
• Change "Reconnaissance" to "Patrol" which is a more general role covering both military and civil.
• Delete the "SST" role and reclassify the few existing types/projects as the relevant Airliner or Commercial roles.

Does anybody have any strong objections? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No objections. MilborneOne (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't even aware there was a proscribed list of role description. I'd have just used whatever seemed appropriate without reference to it. Of course if the list isn't sortable, then there's no issue. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lists are intended to be sortable. that's why it matters. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Add Patrol to distinguish maritime patrol type aircraft from tactical and strategic reconnaissance - a U-2 type shouldn't get lumped with a P-3, nor a Sunderland with a PR Spitfire as they are not the same - a maritime patrol aircraft is often expected to make attacks on vessels, while a PR type is just there to take pictures and scoot back home.

Attack is really US political-speak for a light bomber (when bombers were political minefields) so doesn't really need its own.

Commercial duplicates Transport and airliner so isn't needed. Commercial isn't a role, but who is using it. Almost every commercial transport out there has been used by a military at some point, and falls into either the transport or airliner roles anyway.

Likewise private isn't a role and should be utility or general aviation.NiD.29 22:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The problem with too many subdivisions is that there will always be dual-role types and the more boundaries you have the more problems you raise. For example as well as maritime patrol we have land-based patrol helicopters and other patrol/observation light aircraft. There are also a great many electronic intelligence/warfare roles such as AEW, ELINT, FAC, ECM and so on, many of which are "patrol" but not "maritime" in conception. Many types fulfil several such roles. To attempt sorting on all these would be futile. As for the PR Spit, it would not be singled out from the fighter variants without good reason and in such cases there is no mandate to stick with the default set of roles.

OTOH I fail to see how the average dedicated attack helicopter can be passed off as a light bomber: tactical ground attack has long left its bomber heritage in the past, with modern craft being designed around guns and missiles, and to fire from behind cover rather than overfly the target.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Commercial is unsatisfactory. It was intended to cover agricultural, rescue, firefighting and other specialist roles that don't fit the transport classification. If we abandon it, where do they go? A new Utility role? Airliners are technically transports, but they are such a well-known class that it seemed necessary to distinguish them from other types of transport. If we go with Transport and Utility and maybe also Airliner, does that cover every non-private civil role? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that private is a valid role. The design criteria are generally different from other types and it is not quite the same thing as private use. And homebuilds, racers, sports ultralights and other types designed for personal ownership are definitely not Utility types. We could lump all kinds of stuff into a General role but then we would not be able to distinguish say a medium-sized firebomber operated by a forestry authority from a homebuilt ultralight. A Light role is equally difficult, although a compound classification of Private/Light is sometimes applied. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have not been getting very far with this. I wondered if there was already a good answer out there and found:

Kundu, A.J.; Aircraft Design, Cambridge University Press, 2010. see here

Page 102 has a classification tree. The relevant bits are given in the table below, and as you can see the choice of words can be a bit odd. In the accompanying text Kundu refers to the main classification as civil vs military so I have added those in square brackets. I propose that we use the classifications given in next level down and have added proposed wordings for each one.

Compared to what we have been discussing to date this adds a Business role, which I think resolves our difficulty over Commercial vs. Utility vs. Airliners vs. A.N. Other. At least it is a way to resolve our differences in what has been a very thin debate. What does anybody still awake think of this latest proposal? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Together with experimental craft, gliders and UAVs that gives 14 roles, which I think is too many. Collapsing all of business, commercial (airliners) and military transports together in a single Transport role brings it down to 12, which is the number we have at the moment. So here's my final suggestion:

• Attack
• Bomber
• Experimental
• Fighter
• Glider
• Multi-role
• Patrol
• Private
• Training
• Transport
• UAV
• Utility

I seem to be talking to myself here. Unless anybody comes up with an equally complete proposal, or other strong objection to change is made, I shall update WP:AVLIST accordingly. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Attack" is political jargon for bomber, and utility (or liaison) is just a light transport so neither is really needed. I agree with using Transport, especially since there is a lot of military/civil crossover, and any distinction in size is arbitrary. Why is there no Reconnaissance category? Patrol does not imply the same thing at all (but is still needed). While most modern reconnaissance aircraft may be converted from other roles, this is not the case for historical types.NiD.29 (talk) 12:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These points were all addressed above. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This always happens when people try to categorise an amorphous thing. "Attack" is clearly a euphemism like "strike" but the difference between being killed by helicopter weapons and fixed wing aircraft weapons, has military meaning, even though there isn't one for the victims. The harder you try to avoid a miscellaneous category, the more glaring the omission becomes and the less satisfactory the remaining criteria. Why not try a different paradigm and categorise aircraft according to what faction of the boss class gets the biggest unearned income from them? Keith-264 (talk) 08:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to find it in the discussion above, so I presume it has yet to be mentioned; what category would we put an aerial refuelling aircraft under? Transport perhaps? Essentially all it does is transport gallons of fuel, and generally has a secondary capability as an airliner for troops or the strategic transport of cargo. I apologise if this has been brought up already.Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this one has been sensibly discussed. I would be inclined to class it as Utility since it does not transport its "cargo" to its ultimate destination but discharges it en route like say a cropduster or a water bomber. I can think of few things more utilitarian than refueling. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many lists belonging to military organisations can not be simply made sortable because they are split under subheadings such as Fighter and Helicopter. These cannot simply be moved to the Role column because say "Helicopter" is not a role as such. The currently designated role values also get in a muddle over what is a "role", as they include UAV and Glider - also classes of aircraft rather than roles. For example some UAVs are attack aircraft while others are patrol types. So I am thinking that for the most generic lists we need another column for the class of aircraft. Something like:

Role: Attack, Bomber, Experimental, Fighter, Multi-role, Patrol, Private, Trainer, Transport, Utility.

Class: Jet, Propeller, Rocket (includes hybrid jet + rocket), Glider, UAV, Rotorcraft (includes compounds), Airship, Balloon.

This would make the typical military operator's column headings:

Table subheadings can then be moved into the Role or Class columns as appropriate and the tables made sortable.

Comments? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be better to keep separate tables for each "class" rather then grow the table, is the whole lot being sortable really important? MilborneOne (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks good. Having multiple values in a sortable table, even a large one, is certainly do-able. Just look at List of current ships of the United States Navy. The "Commissioned Ships" table is huge, it works perfectly fine and is a great resource. - ^theWOLFchild 23:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really all that large actually - many aircraft tables are already at least as large, if not larger - check out List of aircraft of the Royal Air Force for what I mean. Adding a column of random conflicting date regarding the configuration will make the entire table unviewable on the majority of devices.NiD.29 (talk) 05:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many smaller forces have very few helicopters or UAVs. Breaking these out into multiple tables with only one or two entries in each looks silly - hence the current popularity of subheadings within a single table. Also, one might want to sort across the whole range; "Oh, look, Lockheed-Martin supplied UAVs as well as jet planes", or, "See, they have more helicopters than airplanes in the patrol role", or whatever - hence the need to get subheadings out of the way. I do this kind of sorting quite often when it is available, so yes, for me it is important. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how so few people have anything to say here. I guess I'll take the slim "consensus" here, push it onto our style guide and a few articles, and see how it goes down. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I updated the guide, I swapped the Class and Role columns because it looks better for the majority of entries. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

why not just include a comment in the note column? Make Helicopter the first entry in the notes column for each helicopter. The extra column will mess up formatting, given the number of tables that are already too wide to format correctly - this will make it worse.NiD.29 (talk) 12:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing subheadings in favour of an extra column is a good idea and far more suitable with the sortable function. NiD.29, I believe the major problem affecting table width is excessive notes or too much information under a single column, the extra column itself is negligible in this regard. Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sortable function won't work when any given aircraft can have multiple conflicting entries in a given field, and adding several more fields will not make the table any easier to use or view. There is a link to the aircraft in question that will provide that information if it is needed, but for comparison purposes, it doesn't add anything.NiD.29 (talk) 05:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I quickly assembled a table, per the columns outline above by Steelpillow for all current RAF aircraft. The table is neither too long nor too wide as NiD.29 and MilborneOne had concerns regarding. Ultimately, the width of the table is best controlled by limiting unnecessary content in the notes column. I would personally restrict it to citations for No. and only the most important key notes. The sortable function works exceedingly well I think, and it will be of particular use on longer aircraft lists, such as historic RAF aircraft, or current US military aircraft. In fact, in those article I believe it to be an essential tool for the reader. As default, the table is sorted alphabetically under the type column.Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm impressed. Just a couple of thoughts

• One can never be quite sure what will need a citation, so I think we should keep with the present guideline that they all go in the Notes.
• I initially used "rotorcraft" rather than "helicopter" as various compounds and hybrids have seen service, for example rotor kites, autogyros and tiltrotors. Logically one should roll helicopters in there too, but in practice it seems a bit over-pedantic and I think it might be better to treat 'choppers' as an honorary class.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that historical pages are covered as well, and having a long column that says nothing beyond "propeller" is wasted space, especially on lists such as List of fighter aircraft, which cannot be copied here in their entirety because it actually is LARGE (despite having had several columns pruned out). None of the "current" aircraft lists are large (and I certainly would not use the adjective ALL when describing any of them), and are poor examples of what needs to be catered to, reflecting only a small portion of the number of types used. Closer are the full use lists, but many of those are still smaller than the role lists.

Perhaps if propulsion is that important (I don't think it is), then piston, jet, turbofan and turboprop could be used, but on many of the historical lists, it won't add anything at all, and if you are having one for helicopters then autogyros should be included - rotor kites are exceedingly rare (only one ever entered service) as are tiltrotors of which again, all but one is in the experimental class, but most countries operated various autogyros in the 1930s. I think there should be room for one offs, which may be used on only a limited number of pages, so long as there is some central cohesion as regards to terminology and syntax, which should be as natural as possible so no-one has to refer to a style guide to remember what words are allowed - rotorcraft fails that test. The RCAF for instance had dedicated forestry aircraft, and others have used crop dusters, nether of which falls comfortably in any of the proposed categories.

I prefer footnotes rather than spelling everything out on each note line - especially as many are duplicated. This allows a mention that an aircraft is a helicopter, flying boat, seaplane, amphibian, experimental, parasol monoplane, biplane, triplane, quadruplane, tandem wing, pusher, push-pull, buried engine or whatnot, and as the notes produce a popup with the appropriate text, provides the information in a suitable accessible format.NiD.29 (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a sensible suggestion, footnotes rather "spelling everything out". I also agree we need rules for what goes in the notes section, I find it difficult to justify 99% of what I currently see in them.Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least two problems with such pop-ups. Firstly, they are not sortable on: if "Helicopter" is banished to a pop-up then it cannot be sorted on. Secondly, they require javascript. If that is disabled then some of the page information is hidden. It's OK if something fancy such as sorting does not work - that's the visitor's choice - but I cannot accept that article content should be hidden from some visitors. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the popups (or rather mouse-overs) is kept at the bottom of the page under notes so remains accessible (and doesn't require javascript), and it is possible to make them sortable, by using a hidden sort key although at the expense of load time, page size and complexity, although I have noticed changes to the wikitables that has improved sorting that removes the need for some of the sort keys (such as the number and date keys) used in the past, so things even out.NiD.29 (talk) 13:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the footnotes are visible down below, the immediacy of the list format is lost: they are no longer simply connected to the list entry concerned and navigation/comprehension become problems. Footnotes are not meant to come so thick and fast, they are for occasional notes. Sorting on a key when the particular term needs a mouseover to reveal it is even worse: at best the sorted list hides its sort terms behind the mouseovers. Also, if one relies on the Notes for common information then several bright ideas soon get piled in, each demanding its own sort key: which gets precedence? No, sorting on the Notes is OK for something unusual like the number of wings in the list of multiplane aircraft and that is what it should be reserved for, not for anything commonplace. There is no point in threshing about with markup tricks to try and do something that is just too complicated. If something really needs all this fiddling around, best to leave it out of the list altogether. Or, if it routinely needs to be in the list, give it its own column. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now also thinking that the No. column would be better titled Tot. to help distinguish it from the number in service. Any views? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. is a standard contraction of number - tot. is not only longer but is less comprehensible, especially to a non-English speaker.NiD.29 (talk) 12:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't working. Too many lists of current aircraft have adjacent headings In service and No., and it is very unclear to the reader, or to the editor coming across gaps, what the distinction is. Since "Tot." is not thought to be widely enough understood, I am proposing that the "No." heading be changed to Total. Does anybody have a better proposal? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how non-English speakers are a priority on the English Wikipedia, so I think "tot." is fine. But we can go with "Total" instead, if more people are happy with that. SP's point is made, "No." and "in service" can be confusing, to both English and non-English speakers alike. - ^theWOLFchild 11:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Total seems short enough not to have to abbreviate. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If space is really an issue why can't we use #? No need to translate at all, completely clear, and very short.NiD.29 (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because # suffers from the same problem as "No.": it just says its a number, which we can all see anyway, but gives no hint as to what the number means. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have a problem with Total it isnt that long. MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

# Operated? As soon as you get past just number/no.#/total it gets too long for the contents of the column - of course it is just a number - it is pretty clear I think that it is the number of aircraft operated, and all is really needed is a spaceholder for that column header. Don't make things more complex than they need to be.NiD.29 (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Can you explain what you mean by "number/no.#/total"? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion shows a consensus for Total. I'll get on with it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Filling in the List of aircraft of the Royal Air Force there are quite a lot of biplanes and a good few flying boats.

• Would a Biplane class be a good idea? (monoplanes divide into propellers, jets, etc.) What about the odd triplane and even multiplane? It might make sense to merge the triplanes in with the other odd multiplanes. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Would either a Seaplane class, or a Flying boat class (including floatplanes too) be a good idea, and which would be better? It might make sense to stick with Seaplane, as many land types had floatplane variants.

These two suggestions clash: a biplane flying boat cannot be sorted on both classes, so only one can be safely added, but which (if either)? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a can or worms - a comment in notes is more than sufficient if it is really needed, the configuration or class is not necessary.NiD.29 (talk) 12:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a requirement for it, and there is already a problem with many aircraft falling into multiple categories, which would make any attempt at sorting them moot - does it being a biplane trump being a seaplane, or vice versa? Do we then have categories for the number of wings, the number of engines, whether it is a flying boat, a floatplane, a seaplane (of which the previous two are subcategories, not synonyms), an amphibian, an ekranoplan, a VTOL or STOL type, a helicopter, whether it has piston engines, turboprops, turbocompressors, jets or is a glider, whether the engine is a pusher, is buried or is mounted in an odd location. I agree there are too many pointless notes, such as the "developed from an AH-1" above, and trimming them down is a fight, especially when they get beyond a certain size, as on some of the more nationalistic country's air force pages but adding extra columns is definitely not the answer.NiD.29 (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the Notes is that too may things can get shoved in there. If we are getting lots of Helicopter/UAV/Glider/Jet type labels then they will be taking up space anyway and nothing is lost by effectively splitting the Notes into two columns.

On reflection I think that both seaplane/floatplane/flying boat and biplane/triplane/quadruplane create too many conflicts to be viable as Classes. Perhaps they can go in the Notes, as there are not so many planes needing them. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then we need rules for what goes in notes - I agree too much gets put there, most of which is trivia and adds little or nothing to the table as a whole. Unusual configurations, roles etc, or something affecting one of the other columns should be, but not random stuff more suited to the operator section on the page for the aircraft in question should not be there at all.NiD.29 (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a difficult issue, so I looked up some example classification schemes.

Current style guide

• Aerostat (includes airships, balloons and hybrids)
• Glider (includes motor-gliders)
• Jet (i.e. jet aeroplanes, includes direct turbine-driven turbofans)
• Kite (but not "kite balloons")
• Propeller (i.e. propeller-driven aeroplanes, includes ducted fans)
• Rocket powered (i.e. rocket powered aeroplanes, includes hybrid jet + rocket)
• Rotorcraft (includes helicopters, autogyros and hybrids)
• UAV

The following lists are edited for clarity - modern terminology substituted, irrelevances removed or condensed, etc.

Jane's 1980

• Aircraft - mixes powered aeroplanes, rotorcraft, etc.
• Homebuilt
• Sailplane
• Hang glider
• Airship
• Balloon
• UAV
• Spaceplane

William Green; Observer's World Aircraft Directory, 1961

• Jet - straight wing
• Jet- swept wing
• Jet - delta
• Jet - twin-boom
• Prop - twin-boom
• Prop - cross-classified by no. of props and wing position
• Flying boat
• Biplane
• Rotorcraft

Jane's is a useful top-level scheme, but clearly based on the different certification classes - i.e. the classification is administrative as much as aeronautical. Green's provides an angle on subdividing the ubiquitous aeroplanes. Green's scheme is evidently biased towards the types in service at the time, for example there are only a dozen or so biplanes, but even so he is forced into arbitrary choices for things like a twin-boom flying boat. One thing I think they do highlight is the importance of such a Class attribute in any general list of aircraft.

Correcting for these issues, pulling them together and simplifying fairly drastically might give a list something like this:

• Propeller
• Jet
• Rocket
• Glider
• Rotorcraft
• Aerostat
• UAV
• Spaceplane

Note that the current Kite class has been dropped, and Spaceplane added.

This might serve us as a baseline. We can think about adding more refinements, especially to the huge "propeller" class, such as Biplane, Flying boat, Helicopter, etc.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good solid baseline to me. Although surely Helicopter wouldn't be put in the Propeller class as your last sentence suggested? Like Tiltrotors etc, a Helicopter would be classified under Rotorcraft.Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant to say was that a "Helicopter" class could be added as one of the "more refinements" other than subdivisions of the Propeller class. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are oversimplifying - a few more categories isn't a problem - the problem before was the proliferation of sub-categories such as a dozen or so different types each of trainers, bombers and fighters.

We can break what you have into four distinct columns that would otherwise conflict -

lift methods

• kite
• tethered balloon
• rigid airship
• semi-rigid airship/blimp
• monoplane (for early aircraft lists, such as for WW1)
• biplane
• triplane
• multiplane (v. rare)
• helicopter
• autogyro
• experimental

Propulsion system

• glider
• motor-glider
• piston engined
• jet
• turboprop
• ducted fan
• rocket
• experimental

capability

• seaplane (includes flying boats and floatplanes)
• amphibian (ditto)
• stol
• vtol
• ekranoplan
• spaceplane
• experimental

configuration

• pusher
• twin boom
• single-engine
• twin-engine
• trimotor
• multi-engine (4 or more)
• canard
• tandem wing

I think it is more important to reduce overlap than to boil it all down to a half dozen categories that don't fit and are not useful. UAV can be covered under role, but can fit into capability if needed.NiD.29 (talk) 14:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, what are you proposing, that we have all four criteria as separate columns as well as Role, or as footnotes vying for sort keys, or what? Jane's defines eight classes relevant to this discussion (which could be sorted on), Green twenty (many of which are hybrid and cannot be sorted on): how does your proposal relate to such verifiable approaches? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the above discussion I am now proposing the following changes and additions to the guidelines here:

• Add a Class column to the general list format (the military format already has one).
• Provide a baseline set of values:

  Propeller

  Jet

  Rocket

  Glider

  Rotorcraft

  Aerostat

  UAV

  Spaceplane

• These values can be expanded if need be for a particular topic, by local consensus. Some examples might be:

- A list of WWI airplanes might break down the propeller class into monoplane, biplane, triplane and quadruplane,

- The Military History project might prefer to use "Helicopter" rather than "Rotorcraft".

- A list of aerostats might choose to use Airship (rigid), Airship (semi-rigid), Airship (blimp), Balloon (hot air), balloon (gas) and Hybrid.

• Remove Glider and UAV from the allowed Role values for the general format (they are not present for the military format), in order to avoid the risk of duplicate entries.

I think this removes the key conflicts we have identified and should help to provide a way forward for usability in general and sortability in particular. Are there any further constructive suggestions or comments before we test the consensus? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support this proposal, and yes, local consensus will be key in special cases where those values may need expanding.Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now done. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor at List of active United Kingdom military aircraft has banished all Notes information to footnotes, in this case the versions of the type in use, and in their edit comment claimed compliance with this guidance page as their rationale, see this diff. As I originally wrote WP:AVLIST, my intention was that information for the Notes column should be presented as text and not as footnotes. The version information just banished to footnotes here is an example of exactly the kind of thing I intended the Notes column to contain as text. It looks like some confusion has arisen over the usage of the term "notes" in this context. Possibly the still-open discussions above here have fed that confusion. Clearly, this guideline needs clarifying. So - is inline text to be allowed in the Notes column, or only links to footnotes? I am clear in my own mind that the footnotes approach is fundamentally unusable. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No confusion on my side. At first, NiD.29's suggestion of footnotes sounded sensible to me, but I believe your concerns, especially that of footnotes leading to hidden content from readers to be absolutely correct. Anyway, at List of active United Kingdom military aircraft, 99% of the content in the notes section was completely unnecessary and removed, with all of it being readily available at the relevant aircraft articles anyway. However, I left the notes on the various defence contractors to the MoD intact, as I couldn't find that information anywhere (also note that I didn't banish these to footnotes).

With regards to versions, WP:AVLIST doesn't include a "Version" column and says "Do not break up any cells into multiple rows for sub-types". This is most certainly correct, as details on versions/sub-types are available on the relevant aircraft articles. But I was conflicted on whether or not the versions for the RAF and FAA memorial flights should remain. On the one hand, I believe these flights are a unique case and therefore details on versions are likely to be of special interest to many readers. Yet on the other hand, details on the versions are likewise mentioned on the main RAF and FAA memorial flight articles -making it available if anybody seeks it.

So the question is; Do we retain the details on the versions for the RAF and FAA memorial flights, because they are unique and of special interest? Or; Do we treat them as any other aircraft in these lists and remove any mention of versions?

As I have already said here, I had no intention of keeping the footnotes indefinitely. Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of avoiding any further confusion, I removed the footnote formatting. Antiochus the Great (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining all this so thoroughly. I have made a small amendment to the guideline to clarify it - not to ban footnotes altogether, but to make it clear that text in the Notes column is acceptable. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why did national flags or other graphic insignia, however small, should not be used? In MOS:FLAG, " In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself". They for sure make a table faster to scan. And I understand that no images should be included in lists of aircraft, but between tables they can be useful to have a visual break and have a quick visualization of the table's matter, especially in mobile.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You will find the information you seek archived here (images, flags etc). Hope that helps. Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Wasn't that discussion applying to military planes, not commercials? And I understand the pictures prohibition is for those inside tables (with problematic layouts indeed), not illustrations between tables? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The topic which started the discussion certainly arose in a military context, but the issues which drove the consensus are more widely applicable and this style guide reflects that. If you feel that it is necessary to draw out the consensus explicitly across lists of civil and mixed types then we can start that discussion.

There is no blanket prohibition on illustrations between tables but this guide does reject some usages and the practicalities make others difficult to justify:

• A full gallery of every type listed belongs at wp:Commons not here. A link to the Commons gallery would be all we'd need.
• A smaller gallery or other selection of images needs to be informative as to the list content and this might occasionally be true, however:
  • A gallery immediately above the list would push the list too far down below the section or page heading.
  • A selection of images placed above the table code, depending on the user's browser, will either act like a gallery and push the list down or will flow down alongside the list, narrowing the table and making it less readable or navigable.
  • A gallery or selection immediately below the list must be of questionable value in informing the reader about the list.

I can think of one possible format which might be useful on rare occasions, by placing a navigable subsection heading between the images and the list:

List of my aircraft

Gallery of classes listed

[representative image from each class]

List

[List table]

But in general there will be little informative value in that. For example if they are lists used by different armed forces or civil operators within a single national inventory then the distinguishing insignia or logos of the various operators would be more informative.

To me, all this is implicit in the wikipedia-wide policies and guidelines together with the present guideline. But if you feel that this guideline needs clarifying, then again, we can have that discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, I understand the effort to have a consistent style in WP. I was coming here from List of regional airliners which have multiple lists (one for 2-abreast planes, one for 3-abreast, etc.). The pictures were used to illustrate each list with the most common type of every category : June 2015 revision, much more informative than the current one with a gallery at the end with no link with the content. The mobile version worked better than the current one too. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that page is an excellent case for merging all the lists with an extra custom column for sorting on: add a standard "Class" column for prop vs jet and a custom "Seats abreast" column. It then becomes possible for example to sort for say all the four-abreast types, both prop and jet. Some other changes could be made to standardise it more, e.g. the Period should probably just be the date of first flight. I'd suggest a discussion on the article's talk page to establish consensus first. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we could do it. The period is meanigful, knowing the introduction give an era for the conception and the length of production the success of the type. The number built also but it's difficult to maintain a correct number for in-prod types. Having a "notes" colum for only two types doesn't make sens in my POV.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There is little externally to distinguish different numbers of seats abreast, and we all know a prop when we see one. A classic case where the images are not actually informative and serve no encyclopedic purpose. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, delete the images entirely, they're even less useful in a gallery at the end. I think having an example is meaningful : it's the reason ERJs are thin 3-abreast tubes and BAe 146 are fat 5-across.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to discuss this list article further on its talk page at Talk:List of regional airliners, though it may not be possible to reach consensus on everything until the guideline on Groups is settled in the above discussions. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My instinct is to avoid endlessly repetitive links in an article, per WP:OVERLINKING. However the examples at MOS:TABLES show just such repetitive linking in tables where the same item appears over and over. So, for example, should we link every occurrence of the "Fighter" role to Fighter aircraft? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Normally just first instance, unless there is a compelling need to do otherwise. - Ahunt (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, link in the first instance. Anything more than that is not only unnecessary in most circumstances, but looks bad/poor form.Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comments above. I believe that WP:OVERLINK is the appropriate guideline. It includes an exception for lists, but an editor at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Repetitive linking in list tables has suggested this should only apply to sortable lists, so that the linked term always appears at the top. --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At present, the default status values are:

• Homebuilt
• Operational (for individual craft only, such as one-offs, to which volume "production" is not really applicable)
• Production
• Project
• Prototype

These do not distinguish between production types which have been discontinued from those which are still in production. This issue has arisen at Talk:List of STOL aircraft. I propose that we add "Discontinued" to the default values. What are other people's thoughts? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is that the table in STOL aircraft is a bit of a mess and it is not clear what is meant, a simple english comment in a "notes" field is all that is needed in that article, after all it is not really a "type" of aircraft just a capability. MilborneOne (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "Type" is given in the first column, the list covers those types with the specified capability and should conform to WP:AVILIST unless there is an agreed exceptional reason why not. Are you saying that this should be a bulleted list and not a table, or that the default agreed at WP:AVILIST should not apply here? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem with using operational and retired? It would seem to be the natural and expected value - I don't see a need to make this more complex than it needs to be. - NiD.29 (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you proposing to add "retired" to the current set of values, or to replace them? Also, to me "retired" means that an individual machine or block is no longer flying. This does not seem relevant to the generic types we are discussing here, where it is the production status not the flying status which is being recorded. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has now added the Discontinued status, together with the date production ended, to the List of STOL aircraft. So, assuming that Discontinued is acceptable, should the date be included or is that a step too far in increasing clutter? I think this date is not useful in such tables and is a step too far. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With so little in the way of discussion to go on, unless anybody objects in the next couple of days I will go with this:
1.Add "Discontinued" to the default values.
2. Say nothing in the guideline about dates of discontinuation, assuming them to be unnecessary clutter. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC) make no changes to the guideline and treat the List of STOL aircraft on its own merits. The majority of lists using the general format are fine as they are. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The current sequence of columns, Date | Class | Role | Status, looks a bit confusing in some tables. For example the current state of the List of STOL aircraft illustrates how the date and status are both part of the type's history, while class and role are more to do with its characteristics. So I think we should reorder the columns to bring the Date and Status next to each other. Following the military formats, this would mean moving the date column after the Class and Role columns, like this:

Type | Country | Class | Role | Date | Status | Notes

Does anybody have any comments or objections? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, no objections. - Ahunt (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with your suggestion. MilborneOne (talk) 16:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both, I'll get on with it. For practical reasons I shall rename the revised format as "general". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing here that we agree a default column format for list of aircraft in a given role, where such a list is in table form. Category:Lists of aircraft by role gives some idea of its scope (though at the moment a good few of the articles in it should not really be there).

The default set of columns I propose is:

Type | Country | Date | Status | Total | Notes

(This may be compared with the "general" set which is: Type | Country | Class | Role | Date | Status | Notes)

Below are some current lists (though some may not be role-based?), with some added comments. I have paraphrased several of their headings in order to use a common wording in this discussion:

Civil

• List of racing aircraft omits Status and Total.
• List of jet airliners adds No. of engines and Introduced.
• List of regional airliners adds seats, omits Status and Notes
• List of light transport aircraft adds Seats, omits Status and Notes

Military

• List of attack aircraft omits Status and Notes.
• List of bomber aircraft adds class of bomber, omits Notes.
• List of fighter aircraft omits Notes
• Military transport aircraft#List of active fixed-wing transport aircraft adds 4 cols of performance stats, omits Country | Status | Total | Notes
• List of torpedo bombers omits Status
• List of carrier-based aircraft: uses the "general" list format.
• List of jet aircraft of World War II omits Status, adds Introduced.

Either

• List of maritime patrol aircraft omits Status and Notes
• List of STOL aircraft adds STOL performance columns.

There is a separate argument about the role-specific columns such as numbers of seats, but other than that, do you have any comments on whether this is a good idea and, if so, whether the default set of columns is acceptable? For example a Class column might be useful in some cases but I can see little value for it in say the list of torpedo bombers. Or, is it perhaps not appropriate to add a Total column to these lists when the "general" format does not have one? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - overall it looks like a good proposal and would make things a bit more standardized for readers. - Ahunt (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. Do you have any thoughts on specific details? I am coming to think that the Total column is inappropriate but that Class would be useful, for example to resolve some of the "No. of engines" type issues. This would make the columns

  Type | Country | Date | Class | Status | Notes

  which differs from the general set only in not having a Role column. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me. I an guessing that no matter what you choose to standardize on that someone will try to change it, though. - Ahunt (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have added my revised format. let's see how it goes. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How any why would total be removed? This is the only indicator on many lists of how important that type is, so not sure why you'd think it was inappropriate as no argument was resented providing any rationale. Far more useful than class, and it is already present in many lists. - NiD.29 (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i concur total is one of the more usefull peices of information on the tables and all the military role specific pages use total2601:405:4301:CB3F:EC51:F42E:F78D:B7B9 (talk) 05:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

to clarify i think total should stay2601:405:4301:CB3F:EC51:F42E:F78D:B7B9 (talk) 05:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose the role exception makes the military guidelines obsolete nearly all the major lists of military aircraft are role specific — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4301:CB3F:EC51:F42E:F78D:B7B9 (talk) 04:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for coming here to sort this out. The military formats described are for lists of types used by a given military operator. Lists by role are not the same thing at all and there is no reason to make any distinction in format between military and civil roles. The classes were devised with a strong eye to what other reference publications do: a major class is sometimes used to define the scope of a book or to subdivide types within a book (for example William Green's The Observer's World Aircraft Directory subdivides into rotorcraft, jets and prop-driven). Alternatively, as with the List of bomber aircraft the Class column may be used to give the class of bomber - and again, sources sometimes group bombers in this way. I know of no significant source which orders a comprehensive listing by the numbers built. So, the current format is evidence-based rather than opinion-based. There are lots of stats that people are interested in - number of engines, payload, range, speed, and so on. The number built is just one stat among many. At the moment we have the outcome of a discussion that was posted across the relevant wikiprojects over three weeks ago and reached a conclusion some ten days later. If editorial opinion now creates a consensus to override the evidence-based approach - or good evidence for such inclusion is produced - then let us change things. That may not be too hard, as the original consensus for the Role format is small. I shall stop converting lists to the new format until this is resolved, and equally I would ask in return that you stop reverting to the old - I think it is useful to have examples of both approaches up there in one place or another until this is resolved. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the military goidelines are clear for military aircraft none of the other stats you used as examples are included on tables of any page nor are they included in infoboxes and youre rule overcomplicates things, by youre rationale theres no reason to include total in any page even by given military operators also i can find no books where planes are listed by status yet that is included, in fact wikipedia does many things books dont list, frankly i don't see how your argument is valid2601:405:4301:CB3F:2:4D1F:3090:FB2C (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

not to mention before this all role based lists of military aircraft used production numbers, every single one 2601:405:4301:CB3F:2:4D1F:3090:FB2C (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in fact every role based table of aircraft with the sole exception of racing aircraft used production numbers2601:405:4301:CB3F:2:4D1F:3090:FB2C (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these military guidelines that you refer to? I had a run through the MILHIST subpages and could see no relevant page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The key issue in this discussion is, why should a list for a given role differ from a general list or any of the other formats defined here? If you think that more kinds of lists of aircraft should include the number manufactured, that is a different and wider debate: by all means start it if you wish. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You started the debate by unilaterally deleting them - at no time was there a consensus that numbers should be deleted, and in fact they have been a part of many lists for a very long time - and with good reason, as there is no other data element you can provide (not even the "status") that provides information on how important the aircraft type is - there are many types that entered production, saw some service but which were used in such small numbers as to be very minor types indeed, but by deleting the numbers the table doesn't show that - and if anything, tables are about making comparisons. Without the number field, they are a pointless waste of time and space. - NiD.29 (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are wrong about me. As another editor remarked above here, "I an guessing that no matter what you choose to standardize on that someone will try to change it." That was a wise guess. Let's keep this change discussion equally civil. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elsewhere, NiD.29 commented; "If you look further up that same page under Style guide/Lists#No. a consensus was made to standardize on Total." This is mistaken, as the discussion referred to (further up this very talk page) specifically concerned lists for a given military operator and related to the number operated. It had nothing to do with the number built, nor with role-based lists. If this is the unexplained "military guidelines" referred to by our IP contributor, then the idea that there is a consensus for including the number built is quite false. This discussion is a chance to create that consensus. That is why I wrote, "why should a list for a given role differ from a general list or any of the other formats defined here? If you think that more kinds of lists of aircraft should include the number manufactured, that is a different and wider debate: by all means start it if you wish."

To help folks see what the issue is, here are a couple of links:

• The List of fighter aircraft includes the numbers built.
• The List of bomber aircraft conforms to the current role-based format and has no such numbers.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

there was a consensus even if it wasn't on a talk page because before you came along every single role based list except one had production numbers, you changed that without a large enough consensus for such a big change only one other person agreed of removing total and now you have two who strongly oppose thats hardly a consensus and that means things shoudn't change shouldn't new rules reflect how things have been done unless there is an actual reason to change it at least thats my philosophy 2601:405:4301:CB3F:2:4D1F:3090:FB2C (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of bomber aircraft, List of carrier-based aircraft, List of flying wings and List of maritime patrol aircraft only lack numbers because they were very recently deleted, as they had numbers prior to then. List of torpedo bombers, List of airborne early warning aircraft, List of jet aircraft of World War II, List of attack aircraft, List of military aircraft of the Soviet Union and the CIS and many more do have numbers, as does almost every single one of these lists that actually made it to being in a table format.

List of military transport aircraft is a mess and is very much non-standard with payloads and speeds and ranges.

On an unrelated vein, it makes no sense to use operational for status on List of racing aircraft as most are built in ones and twos - they either flew or they didn't, and it isn't relevant in the same way if only one was built or thousands. That would be a case for an exception.

1. Omitting numbers from this one category of lists isn't consistent with all the other list formats that were agreed upon, and for no good reason.
2. The information is available and was already present.
3. One comment buried in a discussion about other aspects of the formatting is not a strong consensus to the mass deletion of information.
4. Only two items in a list are really useful - date, and number. Status tells us nothing about relative importance, only that it entered service. There is a big difference between the 9000 I-16s and 96 Pe-8s built in their relative importance. Both entered service and were operational, but you would probably never see a Pe-8, while I-16s were on every front and every air base, and there is a big difference in production numbers during wartime, and peacetime that are not obvious unless presented in a table - or between historic levels and current levels.
5. If many tables in references lack the number column it is more likely that the numbers were unavailable, or they were constrained for space, or that production was underway and wold be obsolete in a month - we don't have those issues as production figures can be continually updated - not that should be as much of an issue with much lower production volumes we currently have.

- NiD.29 (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that number produced is a good way to quickly see the relative proliferation of each aircraft. I don't think it clutters up the list and is an improvement. I agree that there are many stats that could be included, but its a bit of a slippery slope argument that I believe is unwarranted, as no one is suggesting we add every single stat one can think of for a plane (bit of a strawman argument). Kees08 (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. The way I see it, there is a strong feeling here that lists should include production numbers. This contradicts an earlier consensus that lists in general should not. The reason why role-based lists might differ from the others is not being addressed in the comments here, so there is a lack of clarity in the relation between these two views. I think we need to widen this debate and revisit the consensus on aircraft lists in general. Local Project interest is thin, so I think a suitably-publicised RfC is called for. I'm busy elsewhere right now, but if anybody else wants to move things forward, please don't wait up. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record User:Steelpillow is continuing to revert despite the consensus to keep production number2601:405:4301:CB3F:B99F:A87A:8C2C:5B45 (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus to overrule the default consensus. I have asked you to stop warring and suggested you take this issue forward. You guys persistently refuse to recognise this as an issue or to take it forward. I really do not have time for this but it looks like I'll have to do all the real work myself. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steelpillow contacted me on my user page the other day, to ask me to clarify my RfC close above. Steelpillow's opening of the RfC stated that the status quo was Option 1; but it appears that this is still contested.

So to clarify, I consider the result of the RfC to be WP:NOCONSENSUS. I don't know what the last stable consensus before this discussion was: there seems to be disagreement over that, as well as over the basic issue. I'm sorry not to be more helpful, but I think that, if I told you what the previous consensus was, I would be exceeding my role as thread closer. Dionysodorus (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some new list formats have been added to Template:Avilisthead without any discussion - see here. Using them without prior consensus would appear to breach this guideline. Should we allow such template extensions without comment, or revert unless and until consensus is agreed to include them in this style guide? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• My own view is that if we don't stop this sort of unilateral addition, things will get out of hand and a complete mess. I think these changes should be reverted as soon as possible to stop more articles being linked to them until we know what we are doing. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like similar templates any changes must be agreed, suggest remove any changes that have not been discussed and encourage talk page discussion to get a consensus. It may be that as it is now used in 72 articles we may need to protect the template from change. MilborneOne (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I couldn't disagree more. Extending the template should be allowed, and only in the case that there is a specific objection to a particular extension, should there then be a discussion and community decision made on how to proceed. Obviously, if a change is made that negatively affects existing use of the template, that can be reverted immediately, pending discussion if warranted, but using the switch to add a new option does not do this. To require that every edit go through the process of discussion is contrary to he fundamental goal of inclusiveness and encouraging the broadest possible participation of users. For me to oppose your edits simply because you didn't ask my permission first is asinine and discourages participation in the project. See: WP:GF, WP:BITE Josh (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask for your opinion regarding the following matter. It seems to me that there is a general tendency (or rather misconception) to list two seat fighter aircraft used (not only) for operational or type conversion as trainers. For example, Royal Thai Air Force#Aircraft lists as trainers not only "genuine trainers" such as L-39 or PC-9 but also F-5B/F, F-16B and JAS 39D. Most blatant example is IMHO the Republic of China Air Force#Aircraft with an absurd number of "trainers" - F-5F, F-16B, F-CK-1B/D and 2000-5DI - in total 87 "conversion trainers" not counting "true trainers" such as AT-3 and T-34 aircraft.

While it is true that two seat versions of fighter aircraft might have in some cases fractionally negatively affected combat capabilities (e.g. added weight because of the second cockpit), modern two seat multi-role combat aircraft such as above mentioned F-16 and JAS 39 are indeed comparable to the single seat models in terms of weaponry or maneuverability. One might argue that two-seaters often carry less fuel and thus have somewhat limited combat range or that their "primary" role is pilot training and not flying combat sorties. On the other hand, the second crew member might be useful in combat situatuion for example as a Weapon systems officer (WSO). Therefore, I suppose that the fact that two seat fighter aircraft are used for operational conversion does not make them "just trainers".

To sum up, I suggest that modern two seat fighter aircraft should be listed as Combat Aircraft because:

• in terms of design they are primarily variants of their single seat counterparts
• in terms of combat capabilities they are comparable to single-seaters with possible cons compensated by pros such as second crew member acting as WSO
• they are not used exclusively as conversion trainers but also for "renewing" flights of already trained pilots and for other missions including combat ones where there is the second crew member is an advantage (e.g. reconnaissance)
• they were designed and built primarily as fighters unlike specialized trainers which may have secondary roles of light attack aircraft.

Please bear in mind that that the above written is solely my opinion and I am fully aware of that any change of this matter would require broader consensus. Finally, I am sorry for any English mistakes resulting from the fact that I am a non-native speaker.--Mossback (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To ilustrate my proposal, I have created a simplified list of aircraft of some fictional air force. In this table, F-16B is not listed in Trainer Aircraft section but is listed alongside the F-16A. Similarly to the L-39ZA from the same table which is a dual use aircaft (trainer / light attack), the same principle is applied to the F-16B with its multi-purpose type specification as multirole / conversion. The logic behind this is that while the F-16B was designed as a multirole fighter aircraft with type/operational conversion capabilities, the L-39ZA was designed as a trainer aircraft with the ability to be used as light attack aircraft.

--Mossback (talk) 07:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't have time to engage fully here. Some initial thoughts:

1. These are lists of aircraft not of roles. I think that the role should always just be the design's major role across all air forces unless that is obviously absurd. If necessary, separate entries may be made for variants such as the "Superfighter X" single-seat fighter and the "Superfighter T" two-seat trainer.
2. To get a better discussion, post links to this topic on the Aircraft and Aviation Wikiproject talk pages.
3. The table should be formatted per the present style guide, using a sortable table with no subheadings, no in-cell horizontal dividers and no in-page styling.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your answer but as I don't have enough time either I will comment only point 3. for now. I've followed your advice and transformed the list of aircraft in the Czech Air Force article to sortable but this change was reverted by FOX 52 stating that "table is not large enough for sortable". I would like to ask you for your opinion on this matter.--Mossback (talk) 13:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sortable table makes more confusion than helps. Sortable's work for large volumes of data, currency, stats etc. (ie:Numeric sorting), but Rank listings, weapons, and/or aircraft roles should be listed as Mossback has shown with sub-headings - FOX 52 (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that tables with sub-heading are in this case better. I've just followed the sortable example from WP:AVILIST and Steelpillow's advice.--Mossback (talk) 08:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I came across the List of X-planes article, and was confused by why the table wasn't a regular wikitext table that could be understood by syntax highlighters in wikitext, and by VisualEditor. Unlike other cases of template-controlled tables (such as those with a template for start, end, and each row), it seems this table is actually still controlled by the host article. The only portion controlled by the template in this case is the category membership for "non-standard" lists. I hope that we perhaps find a different solution.

A few ideas:

• Add the category directly to articles instead.
• Move the categorisation responsibility to a (different) template. For example, inserted via "{{Avillist-cat|nonstandard}}" (that way the name of the category is still centralised). Or perhaps add the responsibility to an existing template used on the articles, such as {{lists of aircraft}}.

Thoughts?

--Krinkle (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator and usual maintainer of the template, the first thing I would say is that the "nonstandard" option is exactly that. Most instances of its use are based on a different mode, in which the template controls the column headings. All the options are described at Template:Avilisthead/doc.

The "nonstandard" option, in common with all the options, defines the overall styling and sortability for the table. This both saves the editor from having to worry about it and helps to enforce consistency (and compliance with MOS:TABLES style guidlines) for the reader across articles.

Category:Lists of aircraft in non-standard formats is a maintenance category for tracking usage of the "nonstandard" option to see whether any trends emerge which might merit an update to the template. It is not intended as an aid to reader navigation, nor is it intended as a standalone category without use of the associated template. Moving the Category link to Template:Lists of aircraft would be unhelpful to the point of unworkable. I hope you can now figure out why.

There seem to be two different sides to your commentary. On the one hand you talk about regular wikitext and page readability for syntax highlighters and VisualEditor. This would seem to suggest that the table heading should be placed in-article and not templated. But on the other hand you also talk up the use of multiple templates within a single table. There is nothing to stop you using the standard table-end template and building your own row templates, though I see no benefit in doing either. Would that not make the page even less readable by editing tools? So I am not clear where the problem lies.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion on possible changes to the standard list table formats here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was a consensus to add a column for the no. of machines built. Note that this overturns the "no consensus" verdict on a previous RfC. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC) [Updated 07:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)][reply]

The Status column for military types currently allows for current or historical or both. Consequently, Template:Avilisthead provides all three options. But the option to list both in one table is never used; articles listing both invariably seem to prefer two separate tables. The format option for both is sometimes used in error and has to be corrected.

I'd like to be clearer on whether this is a good balance. Possible courses of action include:

1. Do nothing, just correct rogue lists as they appear.
2. Where an article has both lists, if possible merge them into one. There is usually some accompanying text, so I see this as contentious and a recipe for constant bickering over each special case.
3. Retire the template option to prevent its mistaken use, but leave this guideline as it is.
4. Remove the option from this guideline, to list both current and historical craft in a single table.

Any comments, views, etc? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should we just use the current and historical versions and not use the "military" mixed format as most articles dont normally have a combined table. MilborneOne (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much what we do. I am just wondering whether we should pull the option from the style guide altogether, or leave it here just in case. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion here on how to format lists of aircraft in articles on the manufacturer. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion has now spawned the RfC immediately following below. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prototypes and projects for autonomous air taxis seem to be pouring onto the scene. But how should we classify their role? The smaller ones at least are generally classed as personal air vehicles, but that typically encompasses both private operation and commercial hire. They seem to hit the junction of private, utility and transport roles, but "multirole" does not seem right to me. Any thoughts? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of aviation publications seem to just call them eVTOLs. - Ahunt (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is obviously much overlap, but eVTOL is not a role but a technology - taxis are the role. Even an electric but otherwise conventional and human-piloted helicopter is an eVTOL, while fossil-powered air taxi services are long established. I cannot find any industry source making the direct association, they all carefully isolate the buzzwords from each other's meanings. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True, but many sources, even aviation media sources, just blur the lines between technology and role and wrap it into one. Example where aviation media calls them eVTOLs, but notes that the NY Times calls them "flying cars". - Ahunt (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"eVTOL air taxi"; add "/PAV" when necessary. BilCat (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly doesn't help when people call a helicopter with landing skids a "flying car". There is a more extreme example of such common-name muddling in the use of "Unidentified flying object," to describe an object supposedly firmly identified as an alien craft. What Wikipedia does there is to stick to the actual meaning and just give a nod to the idiocy. I think we need to try and follow that policy here, too. I just found this recent paper on the PAV. It offers an interesting discussion of the various terms. Official definitions are still somewhat in flux, but it treats a PAV as an autonomous single-seater, with anything carrying more people as an eVTOL. It also references a typical usage by Volocopter, which I note treats their eVTOL as piloted until they can get the autonomy together; it is an air taxi only because they will be operating them themselves as a taxi service, and not selling them commercially. Nevertheless, the PAV and the eVTOL are seen as distinct from the conventional helicopter: it remarks for example that "In order to operate helicopters, pilots are required." Yet in fact autonomous helicopter projects are relatively commonplace, with Stanford, DARPA and Skyrise being typical examples. So here we see the whole problem with defining these terms in a bubble. It's all a mess, but I am inclined to go with eVTOL as an additional Class value here, treat the PAV in effect as a single-seat eVTOL, and leave the "is this type an electric helicopter or an eVTOL?" issue to WP:RS to resolve. Does that seem sensible? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me, just don't use the NY Times as a reliable source! - Ahunt (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]