Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Table
Pre-March 04 talk moved here
Linking?
I changed many of the terms into links for people to click if they did know what given categoty was. For example 'wing loading' is link now so you could have page explaining the term. There could be one page to explain them all, or just link to individual pages. I dont know if there is way to keep a links text black though so it does not mar the look of the table. Greyengine5 19:53, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
| Aircraft name goes here | ||
|---|---|---|
| Image caption | ||
| Description | ||
| Role | ||
| Crew | ||
| First Flight | ||
| Manufacturer | ||
| Dimensions | ||
| Length | ft in | m |
| Wingspan | ' " | m |
| Height | ' " | m |
| Wing area | ft² | m² |
| Weights | ||
| [[Aircraft weight terminology|Empty | lbs | kg |
| [[Aircraft weight terminology|Loaded | lbs | kg |
| Maximum takeoff | lbs | kg |
| Powerplant | ||
| Engines | ||
| Power | hp | kW |
| Thrust | lbs | kN |
| Performance | ||
| Maximum speed | mph | km/h |
| Combat range | miles | km |
| Ferry range | miles | km |
| Service ceiling | ft | m |
| Rate of climb | ft/min | m/[[minute|min |
| Wing loading | lb/ft² | kg/m² |
| Thrust/Weight | ||
| Power/Mass | hp/lb | kW/kg |
| Avionics | ||
| Avionics | ||
| Armament | ||
| Guns | ||
| Bombs | ||
| Missiles | ||
| Rockets | ||
| Other | ||
I'm very much opposed to including any of these links in a table of this nature. I think it's unneccessary clutter. How do others feel? --Rlandmann 05:57, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Beta Table
The Current suggested table is on the above. A "beta" table with changes up for adoption is here. For immediate changes use the beta table, which could be shifted to into the current table if a consesus is reached. More long term/radical/other changes can be done on the data table sub-project disccusion page. Suggestions tend to fall into the category of format&coding standards or +/- another data row.
| Aircraft name goes here | ||
|---|---|---|
| Image caption | ||
| Description | ||
| Role | ||
| Crew | ||
| First Flight - | Entered Service - | |
| Manufacturer | ||
| Dimensions | ||
| Length | ft in | m |
| Wingspan | ' " | m |
| Height | ' " | m |
| Wing area | ft² | m² |
| Weights | ||
| Empty | lbs | kg |
| Loaded | lbs | kg |
| Maximum takeoff | lbs | kg |
| Capacity | ||
| Powerplant | ||
| Engines | ||
| Power | hp | kW |
| Thrust | lbs | kN |
| Performance | ||
| Maximum speed | mph | km/h |
| Combat range (Max load) | miles | km |
| Ferry range (Min load) | miles | km |
| Service ceiling | ft | m |
| Rate of climb | ft/min | m/min |
| Thrust/Weight | ||
| Power/Mass | hp/lb | kW/kg |
| Avionics | ||
| Avionics | ||
| Armament | ||
| Armament | ||
Talk
Current (little) issues I have with the table:
Both the thrust/weight and the power/mass columns are pretty much useless for aircraft with both propellers and jets. So I'm omitting them on any such aircraft.
I think rate of climb in metric should be metres per second, which is a standard.
Why does 'length' have 'ft in' but all the other imperial dimensions are ' "?
Is the 'beta table' above grey because someone wants to change the color AGAIN or just to show it as different than the other one?
Lastly: regardless of all these, let's make this table a fixed standard soon so that we can put one of these up on every aircraft article and not have to go back and change it! —Morven 18:24, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- The short abbreviations are not genearlly used in the first of a list. Usually the ft and in are at the top then the ' and ' ' used after in formal listings.
- The color was just to make the table all the same color rather then mix of gray and blue. Whether its this color are blue doesn't matter, though I made the gray close to the color that rings many photo's with the idea of a standard color.
- This was my idea of a final table. The idea was to modify this one till were all reasonbly happy with it as the final refinement place. Alternatively, perhaps others can make there 'ideal' table and we'll mesh them together. It was an attempt to move away from constant changes to the main standard table.Greyengine5 19:35, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Agree with the comment about Thrust/Weight, Power/Mass (but then again, I'd be just as happy to see these go altogether.)
- m/s would indeed be the proper SI unit for climb rate, but in practice this is always quoted in references as m/min (just as speeds are quoted in km/h, which isn't "proper" SI either). Common usage should prevail. --Rlandmann 22:23, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Which other lists use "ft" and "in" at first and then change to ' and " later on? I don't like this feature, but will use it if this is indeed common usage. --Rlandmann 22:23, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think any do. Personally, I'm altering all the tables I put in so that it's ' " every time. If you understand Imperial measurements, you understand that notation. If you don't, you'll be reading the metric version anyway ...
- I'd also be happy standardising on 'ft in' if people prefer that. —Morven 00:37, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I agree we should keep it with the more compact ' and ", for the reasons that you've already spelled out. Since both of us are apparently making the same alteration (and at the moment are the two people actually using the table most heavily) I'll change the template to reflect that... --Rlandmann 01:26, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- The ' and ' ' abbreviations can be used for other things, namely for units of time and for minutes and seconds of latitude or longitude. Despite the obvious ability to use context (as is usally the case anyway)- its really nonstandard usage to not leave it. There are uses of it without explation but most formal resources I'v come across (at least in books anyway) do not, and for encylopedia where many people who might not know these abbrev. its probably more important.
- I'll revert it and then you to as primary users of table can make the final decsion. I think using ft and in for the whole list would be better then just using the shortened abreviations. If ' and ' ' are much preferred then I wont change it back a second time as there's some leeway with such a short list anyway. Another alternative would just be to use decimal feet and avoid inches like in the table above. Once again there's some leeway with usage- though I did have points taken off once for not using ft and in at the top of list in a lab once- with this "list" only have 3 rows its probably not so important though. Greyengine5 18:54, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)~
Short table
Why is there a short version of the table on the main page? It seems completely pointless. If the main table needs to be cut down then it should be done on an individual case. David Newton 23:54, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Its just a matter of convienence, rather then having to manually remove the categories each time and for aircraft without a full listing of information. Greyengine5 00:24, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with David - I've removed it (twice now, from two different places on the page). With respect, Greyengine5, you don't even use these data tables - we've got a table that everyone seems reasonably happy with. Let's leave it at that or discuss and reach consensus before making changes. --Rlandmann 01:07, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- If its that much of a problem for you even at the bottom there I'll put it on its own sub-page. I think the shortened table has merit whether or not its highly used. The short table is easly expanded to the full one, and the amount of data for the full one is often not easily available.
- As for not using the current table-I have been waiting for the basic structure to be completed so variants (such as this short table) look similair to it. I was going to see what suggestions people had for this short table, and use that after a finalization.
- I was not expecting such a total rejection since I based it directly off the table you suggested to me. The level of variety in aircraft, and the kind of pages for them, doesn't seemed to be served well by such a rigid adherence to exactly one table (that must be repeatedly modifed). Having a few sub-types is much more convenient and sacrifices little to the downsides of destandardization. Greyengine5 03:04, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Cutting directly to the chase - as I see it, there is absolutely no need for this constant tinkering. I did not suggest a table to you - I merely responded to your question about if I had my way, what would I include. I am reasonably happy with the longer table, and as far as I can tell, so is everyone else. Even if it wouldn't be my personal first pick, I will continue to use the current standard - that is the nature of consensus. The suggested "short table" invites people to use it in place of the longer one, thereby eroding the "standard" nature of the table. What do you suggest are the benefits of the shorter table?
- I have personally used the current table with a variety of different aircraft types, and seen it used by others on a wider variety. Based on everything I've written or read so far, I can personally assure you that the current table works well and doesn't need any more "help". The only time I had to make major modifications was for the helicopter I used it on (AgustaWestland EH101). Even then, it was just a case of swapping "wingspan" for "main rotor diameter" and "wing area" for "main rotor area".
- Based on your actions to date, I now have visions of this "Other tables" page soon overflowing with numerous minor variations on the theme. In my opinion, that would be a Bad Thing.
- Experience shows me that the only "Other tables" that it might be useful to have are a helicopter version (to ensure standardisation of what we translate "wingspan" and "wing area" to) and perhaps metric-first versions of the table and helicopter table (just as convenient templates).
- I'm extremely tempted just to go ahead and revert your latest attempts at table proliferation, but I'll wait until someone else here chimes in so I can see whether I'm too off-base here. --Rlandmann 04:05, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Once again I dont understand many of these comments. Im sorry if insinuated that you officially suggested that table, but aside from that I already explained my reasons. How "a few subtypes" becomes a 'proliferation' and what I thought was a resonable suggestion becomes a 'tempting reversion target' exceeds my understanding of the current project goals. All i can say is I will continue my work on tables and offer them on the project for those who would want to use them. Greyengine5 04:56, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- The only reason you've given for wanting to add another table is because you feel that some data on the longer table may be hard to find for some types. The simple solution is just to leave it out if it's too hard to find - someone else will come along later and fill it in if the information is indeed out there (and for some obscure types, it well may not be, in which case the blanks speak for themselves).
- I chose the word "proliferation" because I've lost track of how many variant tables you've advocated so far - and wonder how many more are to come.
- I maintain my position that the Wikiproject page is not the place to be advocating your own personal alternatives to what the consensus of contributors is already using. What table you personally choose to use for your own contributions is, of course, your own choice. --Rlandmann 05:15, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- -Yet again I don't understand these comments. Lack of data, outright, is NOT the only reason I suggested. Having subtypes is convienent and they can be easily expanded into the larger form, not to mention the reasons you suggested yourself for subtypes. Aside from that, many minor aircraft do not need a full table- and information can be filled in later same as with the empty tables. Also, repetitious deletion of categories for every 'helicopter' page, for example, is a waste of peoples time.
- -The long sought after finished main table has effectively been reached, thus I started work on subtypes that may be of use to people, such as this short table. As I said earlier I hoped people would offer there suggestions and then it too would be finalized, now much easier since the 'basic structure' of the table is complete (also mentioned before).
- -The idea that im advocating "personal alternatives" is totally contradictory to what i though was happening with this project. I viewed my work as part of the contribution team that has created the table, and these new ideas and extention of that. They have always been up for and part of the consensus of contributors, the same has everbody else's changes and ideas.
- I will it admit to being bold and suggesting so many ideas, you 'have lost count'- but its criticism I gladly accept- becasue its benifited the project and it benifited the wiki. Greyengine5 06:31, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I don't understand the logic of having a subtype unless there's a particular class or category of aircraft where the same data is missing, inapplicable, or hard to find. I disagree vigorously with arbitrarily suggesting that "many minor aircraft do not need a full table", if only because of the subjectivity of defining a "minor aircraft".
- I'm sorry if you're offended by the suggestion that these are "personal alternatives", but when you make broad changes without any prior discussion or warning, it's hard to draw a different conclusion. --Rlandmann 07:18, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- -I am offended by the manner and amount of work you have put into countering an idea that does not seem that unreasonable to me.
- -The short table of course has its drawbacks, but serves a usefull role in standardizing the many pages where only few facts are listed. It can be expanded easily since it has a identical format. I dont think it 'erodes' the standard as is it will aid in the distrobution of the basic table code. I also do not view suggesting a specific table design as "broad change".
- - The general use of subtables is already happening as people make them, and making tables that adapts to these need is a matter of convinence. The 'hard time' you have in 'drawing' correct conclusions is a confusion over the nature of wiki, as virtially all changes to the table have been made first and disccussed later, from the choice for the intial table, to the many categories that have been added, to minor coding issues.
- -I am not exacly sure why this issue is so problematic after good resolutions of countless other issues, such as the kg-kgf, dates, manufacturer, table categores, etc, but I do know it must end, as this debate doesn't seem to be accomlishing such resolution.
- -To this end, i propose a comprimise consiting of: a unconditional withdrawl of my support for the short table. I will use the full table and not use any abridged table, in the manner you describe. On the other hand, I will continue to create other tables and offer them for discuusion and potential use by you are anyone else interested in them. Also, creation of a standard sub-tables for helicopters or gliders should be pursued at least a matter of convience to avoid having to replace the same categories 100's of times for some of these classes.
- -I hope this offers some conclusion to what has become a rather drawn out argument, and a increasingly difficult one for me to carry on. I hope this comprimise is acceptable as a comprimise between our differing views of the project. While I do not appreicate the manner in which you presented many of arguments, I do aplogize for possible offense taken from any of mine. Greyengine5 20:32, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if you're offended by the suggestion that these are "personal alternatives", but when you make broad changes without any prior discussion or warning, it's hard to draw a different conclusion. --Rlandmann 07:18, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with Rlandmann about the proliferation of tables. There is no point having a shorter table for 'minor' aircraft. 'Minor' aircraft have the same number of performance stats as 'major' aircraft, it's just they might be a little more tricky to track down. The point about helicopters perhaps needing a separate template is well taken though I would have to say. David Newton 19:40, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- -I am offended by the manner and amount of work you have put into countering an idea that does not seem that unreasonable to me.
- My intention has never been to offend - but to me, the ideas does seem unreasonable, in the sense that (in my experience) it is neither logical nor necessary. The work I have put in is at best only equal and opposite to what you have invested.
- -The short table of course has its drawbacks, but serves a usefull role in standardizing the many pages where only few facts are listed. It can be expanded easily since it has a identical format. I dont think it 'erodes' the standard as is it will aid in the distrobution of the basic table code. I also do not view suggesting a specific table design as "broad change".
- Where only a few facts are listed, leave blanks. It doesn't get much easier than that. It also doesn't contribute anything to standardisation unless there is some particular category of aircraft where a large majority of types vary from the standard table in the same way. We seem to be getting a general agreement that helicopters are an example of this. Maybe gliders are too - I haven't explored this yet, and haven't researched which figures reference works on gliders commonly quote.
- - The general use of subtables is already happening as people make them, and making tables that adapts to these need is a matter of convinence. The 'hard time' you have in 'drawing' correct conclusions is a confusion over the nature of wiki, as virtially all changes to the table have been made first and disccussed later, from the choice for the intial table, to the many categories that have been added, to minor coding issues.
- Yes - people are adapting the table as required to fit the particular aircraft they are writing about - which is precisely why we don't need a cut-down version of the table.
- As I pointed out to you on your talk page, "being bold" works well most of the time, since in most of the articles we contribute, we're working alone. But when you're trying to make changes to areas that other people are working in, actually discussing things is not only a good idea, it's good manners too.
- -I am not exacly sure why this issue is so problematic after good resolutions of countless other issues, such as the kg-kgf, dates, manufacturer, table categores, etc, but I do know it must end, as this debate doesn't seem to be accomlishing such resolution.
- Two reasons. First, I think the idea is bad to begin with (in the sense of illogical and un-necessary). Second, I see it as part of a general pattern of bloat. We will never have a single table that fits every aircraft equally well for every reader. But we can (and do) hold up an agreed "ideal" table, which in practice we all know many individual articles will deviate from to a greater or lesser degree.
- -To this end, i propose a comprimise consiting of: a unconditional withdrawl of my support for the short table. I will use the full table and not use any abridged table, in the manner you describe. On the other hand, I will continue to create other tables and offer them for discuusion and potential use by you are anyone else interested in them. Also, creation of a standard sub-tables for helicopters or gliders should be pursued at least a matter of convience to avoid having to replace the same categories 100's of times for some of these classes.
- As I see it, the central, bottom line issue here is that you are advocating solutions to problems that apparently only you see. I would suggest that instead of creating more and more and more tables, you either go out there and actually write some articles and find out what does and doesn't work, or at the very least, talk to the people who are doing that. If you had asked "do we need a shorter version of the table", people would have had a chance to say "no" straight away. Alternatively, if you had been using the current table in articles, you would probably have found this to be the case for yourself.
- I don't want this to be a personal feud of any kind - I just find it frustrating to be confronted with solutions to problems that don't actually exist. --Rlandmann 22:32, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Variants
What does everyone think of this? Same size pretty much but easier to read.
- I put a thing for having quick links to variants for aircraft that have seperate pages for them (variants thing). Its entirely its own table though for easy deletion/addition. It may not be possible to get it to work properly with a page though as a seperate table.
| Aircraft name goes here | ||
|---|---|---|
| Image caption | ||
| Description | ||
| Role | ||
| Crew | ||
| First Flight - | Entered Service - | |
| Manufacturer | ||
| Dimensions | ||
| Length | ft in | m |
| Wingspan | ' " | m |
| Height | ' " | m |
| Wing area | ft² | m² |
| Weights | ||
| Empty | lbs | kg |
| Loaded | lbs | kg |
| Maximum takeoff | lbs | kg |
| Capacity | ||
| Powerplant | ||
| Engines | ||
| Power | hp | kW |
| Thrust | lbs | kN |
| Performance | ||
| Maximum speed | mph | km/h |
| Combat range (Max load) | miles | km |
| Ferry range (Min load) | miles | km |
| Service ceiling | ft | m |
| Rate of climb | ft/min | m/min |
| Thrust/Weight | ||
| Power/Mass | hp/lb | kW/kg |
| Avionics | ||
| Avionics | ||
| Armament | ||
| Armament | ||
| Variants | ||
|---|---|---|
| P-51A Mustang - P-51B Mustang - P-51C Mustang - P-51D Mustang - P-51K Mustang - F-6 Mustang | ||
Seems unlikely that variants will routinely have enough unique content to justify links to separate articles. There are only one or two such articles in all of WP I believe. Stan 16:27, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- There will probably be more in the future (largely because some aircraft articles will start getting overly large) but I think we can cross that bridge when we're there. Right now, I can only see seperate articles when there's a lot new to say about the variant - wildly different mission, for example. That's why there's an AC-130 page as well as a C-130 page. —Morven 19:00, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I've written three variant articles myself. The RAF Tornado GR1, RAF Tornado F3 and RAF Tornado GR4 articles do cover different materials. However, if we are to have articles about each variant, it will be a long time in the future. We have to get all the articles about the base airframes written first! David Newton 19:16, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)