Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft

	Aviation portal This page is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
Project	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This page is supported by the aircraft project.

WikiProject Aircraft was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 13 June 2011.

WikiProject Aircraft talk — Archives

Shortcuts

Aviation WikiProject
Articles for review

Peer review

See also nationalities[edit]

I am seeing many aircraft 'See also' sections having nationalities appended to aircraft types by use of templates, an example here. Pinging User:Hohum as the adding editor. Nationality is not a relevant defining feature of these aircraft, the links are there because they are similar types. These template links are unnecessary as clicking on any blue link gives the nationality in the lead section or infobox, if navigation popups are enabled nationality is revealed just by hovering over the links. They clutter the section and complicate the addition of links, especially by new users. I have not seen any discussion to gain consensus on this linking style. I oppose these links and propose that they are restored to their plain versions. I am further concerned that this link style might be applied to other aircraft type lists in articles such as the applications sections of engine articles. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[]

~~Nationality~~ Country of origin is definitely a defining feature of aircraft (especially military ones). Relying on features that may not be enabled is not "accessible", most wiki users don't have accounts. It doesn't cause any meaningful clutter - i.e. it adds relevant information without making the list any more difficult to read (imo). Novice editors can still use regular plain links if they don't understand the extremely simple syntax of {{lwc}}. Consensus is not required before making changes to articles. We are going through the normal process of WP:BRD.

{{Annotated link}} is often used in "See also" sections to provide context for links, but does typically clutter presentation, and tends to vary in its information format. {{lwc}} is intended to provide consistently formatted context without confusing the presentation of the link.

For aircraft articles, I typically haven't used the template for "Related development" entries unless it's by a different nation.

Hopefully other editors will provide their opinions. (Hohum ^@) 10:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[]

What other defining features can be linked, what is the guideline and where does it stop? There is plenty of edit warring over country names and nationalities already without introducing new opportunities. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[]

WP:Seealso allows annotation only to clarify the relevance of the entry to the list. Something like {{annotated link}} might add the nationality in passing, but that is not to say it should be done for its own sake. Unless country of origin is especially relevant to the article topic, it should be ignored. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[]

(edit conflict)

I'm not sure a "thin end of the wedge" argument is valid. We aren't edit warring, we're talking. It starts and ends with consensus, as always.

The nearest guideline is probably MOS:SEEALSO "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous." I'm taking "meaning of the term may not be generally known" somewhat broadly perhaps, but I think knowing the country of origin of an aircraft link is useful contextual information. The guideline even provides {{Annotated link}} as an option - which, as I have already noted, is problematic.

I'm trying to put myself in the place of wiki users who aren't already familiar with the country of origin of various aircraft and/or their manufacturers, and even though I'm pretty familiar, even I am still surprised to sometimes see a "similar aircraft is from a lesser known country. (And it sparks my interest to click through.) (Hohum ^@) 13:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Steelpillow, perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but are you suggesting {{Annotated link}} would be ok, with the country of origin included within it "in passing", yet most of it's contents will be reduntant - about aircraft type - which will be the same as the article we're linking from, because it's in a list of similar aircraft. Yet including only that difference via {{lwc}} would be bad? (Hohum ^@) 13:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[]

So we're clear on how various options look:

**Bare, no additional context**
General Dynamics F-16XL Related development Saab 210 Aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow Convair F-102 Delta Dagger Convair F-106 Delta Dart Dassault Mirage III English Electric Lightning Lockheed F-104 Starfighter Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 Related lists List of fighter aircraft List of military aircraft of Sweden

**With {{lwc}}, country of origin**
General Dynamics F-16XL Related development Saab 210 Aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow – (Canada) Convair F-102 Delta Dagger – (United States) Convair F-106 Delta Dart – (United States) Dassault Mirage III – (France) English Electric Lightning – (United Kingdom) Lockheed F-104 Starfighter – (United States) Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 – (Soviet Union) Related lists List of fighter aircraft List of military aircraft of Sweden

**With {{link with country/sandbox}}, country of origin, sandbox version with tooltip**
General Dynamics F-16XL Related development Saab 210 Aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow – (Canada) Convair F-102 Delta Dagger – (United States) Convair F-106 Delta Dart – (United States) Dassault Mirage III – (France) English Electric Lightning – (United Kingdom) Lockheed F-104 Starfighter – (United States) Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 – (Soviet Union) Related lists List of fighter aircraft List of military aircraft of Sweden

**With {{Annotated link}}, redundant information, sometimes country of origin, sometimes a user, inconsistent format**
General Dynamics F-16XL Related development Saab 210 Aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow – Canadian interceptor aircraft family Convair F-102 Delta Dagger – Cold War interceptor of the US Air Force Convair F-106 Delta Dart – US Air Force all-weather interceptor aircraft Dassault Mirage III – French supersonic fighter/interceptor aircraft English Electric Lightning – Interceptor aircraft, British, 1960s–1980s Lockheed F-104 Starfighter – 1956 fighter aircraft family by Lockheed Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 – 1956 Soviet fighter aircraft family Related lists List of fighter aircraft List of military aircraft of Sweden

(Hohum ^@) 13:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Well, personally I think the WP:Seealso guideline is somewhat conflicted. {{Annotated link}} will usually throw up more than the relevant aspect, so is not a good example. But we are stuck with it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk)

We get to choose to use it, or alternatives. Isn't that what we're talking about here? What's best for articles? What helps wiki users find the information they are looking for efficiently. (and what's easily maintainable.)

Collaborating to find a good way to do that is my aim. (Hohum ^@) 19:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Requested move at Talk:Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye#Requested move 23 May 2024[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye#Requested move 23 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Deletion of VanGrunsven RV-2[edit]

Folks here might like to weigh in on this AfD. If it does go, I'll be sad: I certainly learned something about a Van's design that I didn't know about before! Maybe someone here with more knowledge of this designer could dig out another source or two? --Rlandmann (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]