Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/page content 

Archive
Archives
Archive 1

Contents

Survivors

I questioned a new user on adding every instance of his local museums collection to the survivors section of the relevant aircraft, suggesting that listing a instance for a Hawker Hunter when there were many remaining was a case wher the instance was not notable. He pointed out the example of F-101 Voodoo#Survivors and was merely following the example. Do we have clear guidance on when to list examples in preservation/post service use? I favour notability as too only example in existence, only example in the relevant country...GraemeLeggett 16:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The guidance at the moment has When large amount of aircraft is still preserved, list should be limited to most prominent ones. Not that clear what large amount should be, the F-101 list has nearly 30 but all are on public display. I would suggest that when an aircraft is still in service then only list survivors if any notable aircraft are on public display (refer C-130 Hercules which has 10 listed on public display although I am not sure they are all notable). When an aircraft is out of service and there is a lot of them perhaps we need stricter guidance. The P-51 Mustang says they are 287 survivors including 154 fliers (thankfully they are not all listed) but survivors para lists six random fliers and no museum aircraft. Perhaps if they are 30 or less survivors of a type them we should list them but more than that restrict the list to notable aircraft on public display. MilborneOne 20:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Where is that guidance stated? It wasn't obvious for me so I guess I was looking in the wrong place, hence my question here. GraemeLeggett 12:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Is the Survivors section generally placed before the Specs? A few articles I checked are like that. I'd rather see it after the specs, especially for a long list. -Fnlayson 04:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The project page lists Survivors before Specifications which is why most of them follow that guidance. MilborneOne 12:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • That's a somewhat new addition there. Thanks. -Fnlayson 14:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Would it be easier to just say if n > 10 then make it a separate page? - Emt147 Burninate! 21:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

How about templates for spec tables showing multiple variants of aircraft/engines?

I've been doing a little work on the Wright Whirlwind article, and one obvious problem with it is the listing of specifications for the different versions of the Whirlwind. At present, two versions have specs, the 9-cylinder J-6 and the 7-cylinder J-6, and the article already uses a lot of vertical space. There are at least two more important versions which also deserve to have specs listed: the 5-cylinder J-6, and the earlier 9-cylinder J-5, which was around 20% smaller in displacement than the 9-cylinder J-6. However, listing these in the present format would greatly lengthen the article, with most of that length being specifications, much of which would be empty space or repeated spec labels.

This cries out for a more compact table format, with the specifications as rows and the engine variants as columns. Unfortunately, the present spec templates don't allow for this. Could we make new ones that provide this facility?

I'd imagine such templates would be very useful for aircraft with a long history of development, such as the B-17 Flying Fortress or the Boeing 737. (The latter, I notice, already has such a spec table, but done without templates.)

--Colin Douglas Howell 08:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont think the templates are mandatory and in my opinion as long as you follow the spirit of what is required in the specifications list then a change to a 737 type column format for multiple variants would probably not be challenged. Nobody has questioned the 737 as it does the job required for multiple variants in that article. Perhaps with consensus we could add a multiple variants version to the guidelines. MilborneOne 11:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
It is common to do it in the motorcycle project, I did it for three versions of the Yamaha FJR1300. It would make sense to do this with variants of aircraft engines. Nimbus227 (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Placing Incidents section

Does the placement of the Incidents (or Accidents) section need to be specified? Several Airbus, Boeing, & McDonnell Douglas airliner articles place Incidents after the Specifications. The Gulfstream & Bombardier articles I checked didn't list any Incidents. The Embraer articles have Incidents after Specs. In any event, I think the changes would be few to say Incidents should be located after Specs. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

My preference would be to see "Incidents/Accidents" either appear after the "Operational history" or after "Operators" as I believe that the section further details the operational use of the type. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC).
Then under "Operators" makes sense. BTW, why are there few or no airliner article "operational history" or service records, I would think that there should be some commentary about common factors such as acceptance by public, use of routes, etc.? FWIW, just curious... Bzuk (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC).
I think the Incidents section is where it is on many article because it is generally a list. That does not fit in well with text in paragraph form. This has been mentioned for some reason like this. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I would support the section anywhere above Specifications so below Operators and before Survivors sounds good. Perhaps we can add a comment about notability etc.. MilborneOne (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Concur with Milb, as this is the position used on most of the articles I've workd on, and where I usually move or add the section to. Especially on pages where there have been lots of incidents/accidents such as long-service airliners, I usually include the word "Notable" in the title. - BillCJ (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I squeezed in a 'safety record' section in the F-104 article above the specs which nobody objected to but that title would probably only fit in that article. For airliners I think it would be better somewhere before specs, I could imagine a WP reader scrolling down an aircraft page to see how safe it is just before they fly on one and might expect to see it in the main text. They're all safe are'nt they?!! Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

So is this order ..

OK with everyone? -Fnlayson (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

New article, Dornier Do 28

I just added my translation and slight expansion of the original German WP article on this aircraft, there is a translation request process but I think it is quite slow and they probably struggle with specialist subjects so I did it myself. I note that no references are given (or required?) in the original article. Please feel free to wade in and correct my mistakes. There may be many other significant missing types on the German WP, I would be happy to help if anyone spots one that needs an entry here. Merry Christmas. Nimbus227 (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I see you found it already Bill! Nimbus227 (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Yup! I just noticed last week that we didn't have an article on the Do 28, and there it was! Revert the move if you prefer the long title.
The German site has a mix of some very good aircraft articles, and some stubby ones too. It's the site I usually go to first when looking for new images, and I'm often surprised with the articles they don't have. Too bad the German language isn't transmitted genetically, or I'd have at least a 25% proficiency. ;) Anyway, I'll keep an eye out for some articles thay have that we could use, either as new or expansions. - BillCJ (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
How do they get away with no references? No, Do 28 is fine! I notice though that we have differing styles of titles, Dornier Do 28, F-104 Starfighter etc. I have Lockheed F-104 in my user page to help me find it, is this an ongoing problem? There is a turbine Do 28 operating near me as a para drop aircraft (Do 128?), might get some photos and add a section in. Nimbus227 (talk) 03:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe there are some references now, and good job everyone! FWIW Bzuk (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC).
I put one in, hopefully that should save it from AfD! Memories of the XF-104 still linger. Thanks, I spent far too long on this in the sandbox and decided to let the professionals sort it out!! Nimbus227 (talk) 03:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference section headers

A recent edit to Canadair CF-104 has changed 'notes' and 'bibliography' to level three headers, this means that they now appear in the 'contents' box. This does not seem to be the normal practise, compared with featured articles like Boeing 747 for instance. Would just like some clarification please on this. Nimbus227 (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Some aircraft articles have notes and bibliography as level 3 headers some have as per Boeing 747 (and some are not big enough to use either). It is not something that the page contents deals with - just a note on where the Level 2 Reference should be in the structure. Dont think it matters but it would be nice if all the aircraft pages were all the same. Anybody have a MOS reference to what is recommended. MilborneOne (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The aviation project seems to do better (split reference headers) than other WP articles. WP:LAYOUT seems to call 'notes' and 'bibliography' sections (implying that they need headers) and mentions permalinks and problems that can be caused by changing the header level (have not looked in to this yet). As you say it would be good if the aircraft project selected an article to be used as a 'yardstick' which would avoid time being spent on style issues like this one. As you can imagine it could be confusing for new editors trying to comply with project guidelines. The F-104 Starfighter recently failed a GA nom, the reviewer (amongst other things) criticised the layout, although this may have been his perception of what is correct as even the WP:MOS states at the very end that nothing is hard and fast. Excuse my ignorance but where would be a better place to discuss this than page content. Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Culprit appearing here: Guys, the original alteration to the References section was actually made by a Swedish editor which I was about to immediately revert until I noticed that the MoS allows this variation and in fact, some added advantages accrue besides grouping related biographical records and notes section and reducing the type size, in that the contents box now provides a quick access to each individual sub-section. The References section as a whole has been undergoing subtle development and will continue to evolve as editors adapt the citations and reference guides to fit specific needs.
As to the criticism of the layout of the F-104 Starfighter article, this is so entirely subjective that I wouldn't place much store on it. As to a good example of an aviation article, look at Supermarine Spitfire, North American A-36, F-4 Phantom II, Concorde and Amelia Earhart. Each of these articles is the product of numerous editors and yet provides a systematic and standard format for others to follow. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC).
I also looked at the Supermarine Spitfire thinking it is one of the higher profile articles and agree it is good, noting that the reference headers are 'old style'. I also note it is only B class? Unfortunately I did place much store on the failed GA because it was disappointing that the article appeared to fall over on MoS issues and may well again, if and when it is renominated. Is it true that we only have three good articles? This a separate subject I know, but I believe if articles were reviewed fairly (taking into account the latitude that the MoS gives) then there would be many more. Nimbus227 (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

See also section

Currently, the Page Content page lists See also, Related development, Comparable aircraft, and Variants labels in this section. The {{aircontent}} template does not have a part for Variants now. Should the text on Page Content be updated or Variants added to the template? Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Section ordering got me as well but I am over it!!! I think the variant text relating to the template should be removed as we use a level two section header in the article body and that is recommended on the Page Content page. I think we need to archive this talk page, it's a bit looooong now!! Cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Good spot! Variants used to be linked from the "Related content" section, but got moved to {{Infobox Aircraft}} in early 2006. I'm just going to update the text on this page, since it hasn't reflected reality for two years now. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Missing Specifications

Just looking at a number of articles that have the aero-specs missing spec template and most of them have a reasonable set of data. Before I remove any missing specs notices do we have a minimum acceptable list of spec items, if not should we agree one? MilborneOne (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There's never been anything formally defined as far as I can remember; and I agree with you that this tag seems to have been rather over-enthusiastically applied. I'd suggest that realistic minimums might be:
I suspect the prevalence of the tag is thanks to those who feel that every available spec should be provided for an aircraft; I just wish that they'd spend some time with us on the missing aircraft list - it may provide a new perspective... :) --Rlandmann (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Just as an aside, the specs are often updated piecemeal, with the most recet updater often neglecting (for whatever reason) to remove the tag. I know I've done that myself a few times! I get to the bottom of the specs, and the tag is out of view when I save it, and so I just for get to remove it, or don't realize it's still there. At other times, I really didn't know how much was enough, so I left it there for that reason. It might be a bit involed to do, but maybe changing the format of the specs so the the only blank fields that show in the main article screen are the "important" ones. (Perhaps a form of that is there already - I'm not sure.) - BillCJ (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
{{Aircraft specifications}} seems to have been designed with that in mind; {{aerospecs}} will only display fields when there's actual data in them. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I have been leaving the 'aerospecs' tag where an article has all the specs but no cited reference is given.Nimbus (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Subject name and page title conventions

I'm hoping to precipitate some referenceable text on the convention for the bold subject name at the start of an article. Such text probably belongs on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), but I'm starting here to expedite resolution. First off, as WP:MOS indicates and WP:Air/PC notes, a consistent format contributes to readability. WP:LS indicates that the subject name should appear in bold as early as naturally possible, avoid included links, and need not be exactly the same as the page title. The specific issue that arises with aircraft pages is whether the manufacturer name should be included as part of the subject name, even if not part of the page title per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), for example F-15 Eagle or P-47 Thunderbolt (to use the given examples). I don't at this point advocate one way or the other on the issue, merely appeal for a referenceable convention to minimize disputes. I would also note that the bold subject name in the example in WP:Air/PC includes a link, in contradiction to WP:LS, and it might avoid confusion to conform the example (unless a categorical exception to the WP:LS standards wants to be pursued). Thoughts? ENeville (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Since few people are likely to see this here, I'm answering it over at the main project talk page here --Rlandmann (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Pursuant to discussion there, I am delinking the subject name in the sample intro. ENeville (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Accidents and incidents

Both the airport and airlines projects have recently agreed a definition for inclusion which is -

Accidents or incidents should only be included if

Can we gain a consensus to also adopt the same guideline and add it to the page contents guide? MilborneOne (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As they appear to be no objections I have added the definition to the guide. MilborneOne (talk) 09:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a question about this guideline - perhaps one of the original authors can illuminate the intent for me. Is this list to be read as "and" or "or". In other words does an accident just have to have had fatalities or hull loss or resulted in changes to procedures, or must it be all three? If it is "or" then we seem to have a policy that can be used to include just about every aircraft accident other than minor ones. Either way I think the policy needs to spell that out for sake of clarity.
We have lots and lots of attempts to add fatal accidents for light aircraft to articles like this one. In the case of the Lancair IV there are many dozens of these kinds of accidents or in the case of very common aircraft like the Cessna 172 there are probably thousands of them. Clarity on this guideline would help revert these with confidence! - Ahunt (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

My thinking is that it reads like "or", othewise it would emphasize "and" but if so then we will have thousands of otherwise non-notable accidents added to article like this one. - Ahunt (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The wording does indeed look like "or", but then, it also doesn't say that every accident or incident that meets one or more of these criteria is notable; just that if it doesn't meet any one of these three, it's not notable. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Rlandmann: I would certainly agree with what you have stated, if it doesn't meet any of those three criteria, then it certainly isn't notable. I would think, however, that this guideline would be more useful if it said what type of accidents are notable. When I saw this today I was going to remove it - we get tons of these sorts of posts every month on many of the GA aircraft articles. These days I try to cite a link to a WP policy or guideline when I delete things, to reduce the chances of an edit war. So I checked here for the policy to cite and found that it seems to say that the accident should stay in the article. As noted above the Lancair IV has had a lot of these sorts of accidents. It is a high performance aircraft and there have been lots of loss of control accidents due to human factors. The basic question is collectively do we want these accidents all listed in the GA aircraft articles? A few of us just finished removing most of them from some articles like the Cessna 172? - Ahunt (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I agree 100% with everything you say, including the undesirability of including hundreds or thousands of GA accidents. I was just pointing out that this guideline as it stands doesn't act as a barrier to that. I don't know its full provenance, but it looks like it was formulated with commercial flights in mind; and makes sense in that context. It's not helpful for GA, and is completely nonsensical for military aviation, unless we want to list each and every shootdown of any and every military aircraft ever....
This probably needs to go back to the project to see if we can get some consensus on when a GA or military accident or incident becomes notable. The Disaster Management and MILHIST people may be able to provide some input too. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me that a slightly different policy would be needed for GA over airline & military aircraft articles. I will leave it to the "powers that be" to escalate that upwards then. In the meantime I think that Lancair IV example will go down as "not notable". - Ahunt (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well we seem to be back at this issue again [1]. Can we perhaps just gain a consensus to simply add a section that would say:

"For accidents involving aircraft under 12,500 lbs the standard for whether they should be included is if they meet all of the following requirements:

Since no one objected to the above I am going to put it into the guideline page and see if anyone has any further comment at that point. - Ahunt (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems fair to me ... only I think I'll highlight the "ands". Askari Mark (Talk) 19:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that! The "ands" are the most important parts in my mind! - Ahunt (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been looking at our accident-inclusion policy for light aircraft recently once again. I think it is working well and preventing the articles from being cluttered up with non-notable accidents, with one exception. There are a number of light aircraft accidents that include accidents in which famous people were killed. Some examples:

I believe that even though these don't make the current criteria that they should remain in the aircraft type articles because the connection between certain deaths and the aircraft type is notable. For instance JFK Jr's death will always be associated with the Saratoga.

Therefore I propose that we should amend the current light aircraft accident inclusion criteria to add one more so the whole thing reads:

Light aircraft account for many more accidents and incidents than larger aircraft, most of which are non-notable. For accidents involving aircraft with maximum gross weights under 12,500 lb (5,670 kg) the standard for inclusion is:

or if this is not the case then it meets all of the following requirements:

Thoughts? - Ahunt (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Lacking any objections over the course of a week I will add it in. - Ahunt (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Variants vs. Development and Operational history

There are a few articles that use an extensive Variants section in place of Development or Operational history sections of the article (e.g. UH-1 Iroquois and CH-47 Chinook. I can understand that this is "easier" for the editors to create but in turn creates questions about the timing and continuity of those variants in the development and over the operational history of the aircraft. I understood the Variants section to be used to describe the differences from one model to another, Development discusses the background to how the aircraft came to exist, and Operational history covers the use of the aircraft once it becomes available to the operators. I question the value of blending these into one section, whether it be Variants, Development, or Operational history, because I believe it then loses the value the missing section was intended to bring to the article. --Born2flie (talk) 07:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more! In a best-case scenario, the "Variants" section should provide a quick-and-ready reference to the various subtypes; most entries should be a single sentence. This is especially true of popular/prolific types with many subtypes. The Variants section should summarise what's in the Development and Operational history sections, not replace them... (pet peeve of mine!) --Rlandmann (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the UH-1 is a good example of that, as it has a "Variants" section with short, one-line info on each type. The variant portion in the Development section was added after a cutback of the "Variants" Section, and expanded over time from just a few variants to what it is now. Perhaps we could group the related variants together under sub-headings, or deal with the history in chronological order.
As to the CH-47, it is a perfect example of what Born is talking about, and in fact I've been meaning to tackle it for a while now, but never do. I contributed to the current format over a year and a half ago, before I understood how to do it correctly, and because it was partially that way already. Now that I've been reminded of it, I'll try to get to it this week, if my health allows. - BillCJ (talk) 09:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Have to agree with the all the comments made particularly Rlandmanns that the variants sections should be a summary of development and history and an explanation of differences. The problem with the the Chinook style is that it does not provide a chronological history, and the UH-1 is a bit of both but because the variants have been added to development in alphabetical order which means it does not flow as a development history. Perhaps as BillCJ says we should get Chinook right first as a good example. MilborneOne (talk) 09:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Heavy Bombers

Some people think there is actually a difference between a heavy bomber and a strategic bomber. I dont. they both carry the same amount of bombloads and heavy bomber is not even a type its just a broader and simpler meaning of a strategic bomber. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.217.119 (talk) 08:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I replied at WT:Air. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Operating cost

On the basis of the discussion about whether operating cost information should be included or not I will add some words to this project page. If any other editors think it can be said more clearly, please do fix up my language! - Ahunt (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Image guidelines

This project does not seem to have any guidance material on images for aircraft articles and I believe we need something written down.

We have had a number of occurrences in recent months where existing images illustrating aircraft articles have been deleted or deleted and replaced with other images. Sometimes they are images the person took themselves, other times pictures they have found somewhere. Often there is no edit summary explaining the change and no discussion either. The result is often a delete-revert-delete-revert sequence, which does not help make the article better.

A recent example of this is a typical case study. In the Embraer E-Jets article an editor deleted a photo I had uploaded and replaced it with one he found [2] giving a blank edit summary. After several reverts I finally got a discussion on the talk page, engaged some other editors and at this point it seems to have been decided to use a completely new image to replace both of them. This is fine - at least there was some discussion.

To my mind this example and many others point to two problems that need addressing here:

1. Existing images in an article should not be deleted or replaced without discussion on the talk page. In this case an editor thought that the image he had found was better than the one he replaced, but I disagreed, not because he replaced an image I had uploaded, but because the image he used was a poor angle and a high-aspect ratio photo that didn't fit in with other images on the page. The point being that there is a need for discussion, not a "no-edit-summary" deletion. Perhaps the new image is better than the old one, or perhaps there was a reason why the older image is there - may be it shows a specific variant, angle, aircraft feature, etc.

2. I never delete any images that another editor has added to an article. In some cases it would seem justified, such as in de Havilland Canada DHC-5 Buffalo. In this case I added two images to an article that had two really poor ones, out of focus and badly lit. I didn't delete them, but rather added my own images and left the existing ones there. The reason for my own personal policy on this is that Wikipedia relies on the largest number of contributions to make it work. Many people go to great efforts to get photos for articles. In my own case I have cleaned out my garage (big job!) to find old albums of historical 35 mm aircraft photos from the 1970s to scan for articles. I have biked 70 km to take photos of rare aircraft (I don't have a car) specifically for Wikipedia articles. These are minor examples - I know of other editors who have gone to far greater lengths to get photos specifically for Wikipedia articles. Then they upload them and someone deletes them without a discussion or even an edit summary. This is very demotivating for contributors and has, in at least one case I know of, caused people to give up on Wikipedia altogether. This is not helpful as Wikipedia needs more contributors, not fewer.

I think the solution is fairly simple and could be simply a guideline for this project page that says something like below. I would like to hear what other project members think:

Images

Some existing images used in aircraft articles have been carefully selected to illustrate specific variants, angles of view or aircraft features.

Existing images should not be deleted from articles without discussion and consensus that this will improve the article on the article's talk page. Images may be added to the article without removing or replacing existing images without discussion.

Removing existing images without discussion and consensus may demotivate editors from contributing images and will harm more than help the aim of getting the best pictures to illustrate all aircraft articles. It is better to have an excess of images and put them into a gallery rather than remove images and have editors stop contributing as a result. - Ahunt (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. I also try to add images instead of replacing them. It should also mention that in flight images are preferable for the Infobox. Some editors want to replace a good flight image with "their" image of the aircraft sitting on the ground. Sometimes there are folks pushing images of their airline/military and replacing images as well. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I know where you are coming from, it is a growing problem. Not long after this discussion [3] the infobox photo was changed without discussion, the editor stating that discussion was not needed. This may be true but discussion is the only way to gain consensus (read keep everyone happy). I had a break from WP for a while after that and other incidents. I certainly think that discussion on changing the infobox photo is appropriate but possibly not other images, especially if an 'obvious' low quality image is replaced with a 'very obviously' better one. I have taken photos especially for articles but tend to go for subjects that have no image at all in the hope of avoiding any 'my image is better than yours' discussions. We all know that 'ownership' of an image is virtually relinquished once it is posted here but I can understand that as human beings we might have feelings on them being replaced or deleted. I thought I did see guidelines on the infobox image but can't find it, maybe it was on a talk page? Image copyright verification is another area that editors spend time on before posting (I have posted some German WP images after translating their tags and making sure they were ok to use). Galleries are a possible solution but many editors don't like them (there is usually a 'Commons' link), if they were used perhaps the number of images in them should be limited. And of course any 'guideline' is free to be ignored as it says at the bottom of this particular project page!! Cheers Nimbus (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
As an example here are the guidelines from the automobile project: [4], I note the phrase 'conventions will be followed' at the top of the page, crikey! Nimbus (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Fnlayson that the guideline should mention info box images being in-flight where possible. New draft version below.

Nimbus - you weren't the editor I was thinking of, but obviously this phenomena is having a negative effect on editors who contribute lots to the project, as you do! Personally I am actually against deleting any images, no matter how bad. I would rather put them into a gallery, rather than drive anyone with good intentions off Wikipedia. It isn't a good trade for one poor image in my estimation. I know some editors don't like galleries and I am on record as supporting them. I think they solve more problems than they create, but that is just my opinion.

Okay I do admit that did delete one image [5] but it was discussed on the talk page first and was a totally irrelevant image to the article (or anything else).

On "enforcement" you are quite right, it is just a guideline, but my hope is that if we get good consensus to adopt it then perhaps the regular editors here can help revert image deletions and get them onto the discussion page. I know whenever I see image deletions (not just my own) I revert them and try to get a discussion going, especially if the images were not poor quality or off topic. - Ahunt (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Images (second draft)

Some existing images used in aircraft articles have been carefully selected to illustrate specific variants, angles of view or aircraft features.

Info box or lead images should show the aircraft in flight whenever such a picture is available. If an in-flight image is not available then the info box or lead photo should show the best overall view of the aircraft and not a detail close up or similar shot. Detail photos should be further down, in the sections they better illustrate (i.e. Landing gear, instrument panel).

Existing images should not be deleted from articles without discussion and consensus that this will improve the article on the article's talk page. Images may be added to the article without removing or replacing existing images without discussion.

Removing existing images without discussion and consensus may demotivate editors from contributing images and will harm more than help the aim of getting the best pictures to illustrate all aircraft articles. It is better to have an excess of images and put them into a gallery rather than remove images and have editors stop contributing as a result. - Ahunt (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I like it, but I'm not sure about including the last paragraph. Ah nevermind, it is growing on me. Anybody got any issues or suggestions on the 2nd draft? -Fnlayson (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I read the automotive image guidelines that Nimbus pointed out. They are worth a look. They are very much more technically specific than what I have proposed here - focusing on colour, contrast, lighting, representativeness, etc. Does anyone think we should go that route? - Ahunt (talk) 12:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
As somebody who often deletes images in aircraft articles for various reasons I have a few comments. I dont have a problem with the idea of the image guideline and support the idea. Agree that the the infobox image needs some sort of protection (if only by definition). Agree that existing images should not be deleted without at least an explanation on the talk page. Most of the images I delete are newly added and mainly copyright violations but some of them are just bad images, what I would call holiday snaps or duplications of images already in the article (same sub-type, same airline etc). Most of these would normally just be covered by an appropriate edit summary. The other case which is replacing images for nationalistic reasons is covered with the dont replace statement. Not sure I agree with encouraging galleries as most of them are just filled with the holiday snap type of images where we should really encourage more technical images of aspects of the design that have been discussed in the article and we should encourage the use of commons. So I think you could lose the last paragraph and it would be a good starting point. Some of the good general points in the Auto guidelines may be worth considering the more particular points are probably to much for aircraft (consider 1, 3, 7 and 10). 9 (Captions) was interesting as some aircraft articles have a complete history of the aircraft in the image caption even if the particular aircraft itself is not notable perhaps we should consider some general caption guidelines as well. MilborneOne (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I also agree, galleries are a bad idea. If there are too many image to show, try linking to the commons galleries in the see also section. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Images (draft 3)

(Undent) I cobbled this mixture of the proposals above and the automobile project guidelines together as a suggestion, I copied the bit about galleries over. They do seem to be discouraged on WP in general, perhaps this feature should be switched off although I think there are a few articles where it works well. I added a line about captions.

I didn't number the paras but I think they are in a reasonable order, gives us something to play with anyway. Cheers Nimbus (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Still dont like the last paragraph appears to have more opinion than guidance and still encourages galleries. So I would agree with all but the last paragraph which in my opinion could just be removed. MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I like what Nimbus put together above. I realize that some editors don't like galleries. The most complete guidance on them is at Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Photo_galleries which indicates that no policy on galleries has been decided, although they are generally discouraged and that "good reasons must be given for creating them". Personally I see galleries as a better option than deleting photos, but that is just my opinion. I usually put galleries right at the bottom of the article, so they aren't obtrusive. Since the final policy on galleries within Wikipedia in general has not been decided I don't think we should go either way on them within this project either. Perhaps MilborneOne has the best approach and we should just remove the last para from the proposal and be silent on the subject of galleries. - Ahunt (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Ok, so we are getting there. I think the sentiment of the last para is the reason that Ahunt opened this discussion, perhaps it could be reworded to be more of a guideline than opinion. It is acknowledged that this can be a problem area (by me at least). Agree that recommending the use of a gallery here contradicts the para that refers to 'not flooding an article with images'. Nimbus (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Oops! I see now that the penultimate para covers this so I agree the last para could go. Nimbus (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • This is good. These can be adjusted/clarified in the future if needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course - everything is subject to change and adjustment over time! Do we need to wait and get more input then, or can we "go live" now and use any later opinions to adjust the final result in place? - Ahunt (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Yep, that's what I was getting at. This does not have to be complete to start with. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay let me post it on the page, less the last para and then you can all wade in if you think it needs more changes. - Ahunt (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Nice one! I expect the infobox image guideline might get tweaked for the better in due course, Great job chaps! Nimbus (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I wanted to add my thanks to everyone - I think this was a model in cooperation and consensus building - it worked well! Thank you all for participating. - Ahunt (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Democracy eh?, Marvellous!! It is worth looking through the archive of this page, there is quite a lot of previous discussion on images, some of the points could be used to polish the guidelines. Somehow none of those discussions and proposals made it to the project page. Nimbus (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that in many cases it just takes one or two people who will see an issue through and not let it get stale and remain unresolved - the more the better, however. - Ahunt (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Survivors (or Aircraft on display)

Like to add the following to the end of paragraph - Aircraft that are still operational (in military or airline use) only aircraft on public display should be listed and the title Aircraft on display should be used. Any comments. MilborneOne (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That seems fine. I'd like to see some wording that says aircraft in operational use are not included with "Survivors", so this is clear. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with both those thoughts. I don't really like "Survivors", because I don't think it is clear to the casual reader what the term means. In some articles, when the aircraft are all in museums, as opposed to being displayed in parks, etc, I have just called the section "Museum Aircraft" to be more specific. I don't object to "Aircraft on display", though. - Ahunt (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Have to be careful with the definition of 'operational' to cater for the older types that still fly effectively as museum pieces, some earning revenue. I'm thinking of the Shuttleworth Collection, Air Atlantique or the three F-104's that are still flying as a private demo team for example. Do we have a problem with this section in articles and are we contemplating changing the title of that section project wide? Nimbus (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "Survivors" or "Aircraft on display" should be fine. I think we are just trying to clarify where operational aircraft should be be listed. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I remember we were kicking this wording around a while ago; the problem was finding a single word or phrase that encapsulates the variety of aircraft and bits of aircraft that we list. I too dislike "survivors" - not only is it counter-intuitive, but is not a word I seem to have encountered much in this context. "Notable extant examples and replicas" would probably cover it, but is a bit of a mouthful! (And no, I don't believe for a minute that the surviving wreckage of a warbird somewhere in the wilderness is necessarily notable)
Like Nimbus227 says, we need to be careful about what we call "operational" - personally, I don't think that things like the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight should count - ie, their aircraft are eligible to be listed as "survivors" --Rlandmann (talk) 00:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I guess 'Survivors' is a compromise which I have to agree may not be ideal but I can live with it. We have a book published every year in the UK called 'Wrecks and Relics' listing all (and I mean all!) bits of aeroplanes kicking around, flying or otherwise. The only problem I see in this section is long lists of rusting hulks and they are fairly rare. Nimbus (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have always looked at these lists on Wikipedia as being "where would a casual reader go to see one of these aircraft on display", in other words museums, gate guardians, etc. "Survivors" almost sounds like "personification" to me! - Ahunt (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well this started off as a discussion on the guidelines for this section but I can see that people have reservations about the section title. If you really want to change it how about 'Surviving airframes'? But a bot would have to be used, I'm not typing it in thousands of times!! More worms I think. Nimbus (talk) 01:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Following comments above just thought I would try a revised wording which actually creates two headings:

I have kept the term as survivors for now (so we dont have to rename everything) but open to suggestions. Any thoughts. MilborneOne (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Good wording, I think. It won't be a problem if an article has both sections, right? -Fnlayson (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
No problem, the idea is that both could be used if appropriate. MilborneOne (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • * *
MilborneOne want once again to define what is considered notible, so lets define it:
  1. Mass Produce aircraft
  2. Historical Content
  3. Well Known to the public (can name that aircraft in one glance at a picture)

So lets look at some of MilborneOne's articles:

  1. Auster Atom - one built, zero historical content, unknown to the public - not notible
  2. Armstrong Whitworth Apollo - two built, zero historical content, unknown to the public - not notible
  3. BAT Baboon - one built, zero historical content, unknown to the public - not notible
  4. BAT Crow - one built, zero historical content, unknown to the public - not notible
  5. Breda-Pittoni BP.471 - one built, zero historical content, unknown to the public - not notible
  6. British Army Aeroplane No 1 - one built, zero historical content, unknown to the public - not notible
  7. Elliotts Newbury Eon - one built, zero historical content, unknown to the public - not notible
I am sure I could go on and on with this list find numerous aircraft that do not belong in a general encyclopedia (as many are claiming wikipedia is). According to this (small group) only aircraft (or things) that are easly identifiable to the public should be included in wikipedia. I am quite sure that if this type of rules go into effect, every article listed above (plus many, many unlisted) will be deemed unnotible and subject to deletion. Davegnz (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is claiming that Wikipedia is a "general encyclopedia"; only that it is an encyclopedia (as opposed to any other kind of reference work). In the context of articles about aircraft, Wikipedia can be compared to an encyclopedia of aircraft. These types of works organise their content by distinct aircraft types; and the most comprehensive ones include entries on minor types where one (or even none) were built. Because Wikipedia isn't paper, we can afford to also include separate articles for these one-offs. No-one is claiming that these are anything other than footnotes in aviation history, but we are modelling our content on what encyclopedias do, since that's what Wikipedia is - an encyclopedia. --Rlandmann (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
You just said some magic words - " Because Wikipedia isn't paper, we can afford to also include separate articles for these one-offs " because Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia we have room for the details - whether an editor wants to spend 50 hours researching a one-off type of aircraft or and idiot editor (ie me) wants to spend 5 hours researching an photo caption) there is room for everyone. Wikipedia should be like Aeroflight's Encyclopedia (which is published yearly) or simular to their web page: F-15 Eagle
I note that once I hit you favorite subject that were close to home, you feel the need to protect you work - I feel the same way about my research. Davegnz (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
The issue with photo captions is not one of space - it's with excessive detail that reduces readability through the clutter it creates.
To the best of my knowledge, Aeroflight does not publish an encyclopedia. If it does, please provide a link. But Wikipedia should not attempt to emulate the work of specialist websites like Aeroflight - these are quite different publications.
To use a very rough analogy, it's like arguing that every family that owns a minivan should own a 2-tonne truck instead, because the truck carry more and "more is better". But the van and the truck are intended to do different things and are aimed at different markets and have different advantages and disadvantages. So too an encyclopedia article is intended to do something different from a page on a specialist website. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
As nobody has any objections and Davegnz comments are related to notability which is not dealt with in the suggested text I will amend the appropriate page. MilborneOne (talk) 10:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree! - Ahunt (talk) 10:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Captions

F-16CJ-50C 91-346
SW
20FW (Shaw AFB)
Armed with air-to-air and SEAD ordinance.

A ruckus has sprung up on F-16 Fighting Falcon article over what makes an acceptable caption. The talk page discussion centers on two philosophies: Davegnz’ belief is that “Captions tell the history of an aircraft - if you are going to have a picture of an aircraft then you need to tell its story and background - this is only common sense if not for readability then for accuracy in reference.” An example of the captioning Dave prefers can be found to the right.

Other editors have countered that his approach leads to “information overload” and that the history of the aircraft belongs in the main article text. Furthermore, his particular captioning style employs unexplained acronyms and abbreviations which are probably undecipherable to the non-military aviation expert. Still, if some of this content enhances the information value of the caption, there is also a question of what approach to employ for non-military aircraft. (I would note that the approach he is encouraging runs into problems with non-US aircraft.) Yet another issue is whether captions should be left-justified or center-justified. Thoughts and recommendations, please. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic and fair summary Askari Mark - thank you! The only point I'd add is that User:Davegnz's position also seems to be that it's OK to build external links into image captions. The left- vs center- justified captions issue is something we discussed in the recent past, and Infobox Aircraft and Infobox Aircraft Begin both now support centered short captions and left-justified long captions. Centered captions are the norm throughout pretty much the rest of Wikipedia. --Rlandmann (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I find the caption as presented in the example to be confusing and not of the sort of content that belongs in an encyclopedia, in Janes perhaps but not an encyclopedia. I spent almost 20 years as a Canadian military pilot and I don't know what the caption means by "SW". What does "SW" tell you? How is the aircraft's serial number significant in an encyclopedia context? - Ahunt (talk) 11:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Ordinance? Have to agree that less is more with photo captions. Nimbus (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we have to keep in mind that, while we have some avid scale modelers who make some great contributions here, that fundamentally Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia and not a modelling magazine. The kind of intense detail that would be appropriate in a modeling magazine may not be applicable here. As it says at WP:NOT PAPER:

"A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text."

In other words, I understand this general guidance to mean that the all content, including captions, has to be comprehensible to a casual, non-expert, reader on first read through. - Ahunt (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
If this is the case of dumbing down photo captions then we have to dumb-down the articles as well - to a non-aviation person, what does weight to air ratio mean??
  1. why have variation section??
  2. why have a specifications sections??
I am told by many that wikipewdia is a General Encyclopedia - if this is the case why have extensive sections on improvements and Service modifications (as some article do).
If you dumb down the photocaptions then you need to dumbdown the articles and get rib of the gobbygook (a technical term if ever there was one.
as far as links in the captions, tried doing it as a reference - but guess what, this did not work - but wiki policy states that a direct reference should take you to detailed information regarding a subject - clicking on the s/n will take you there.
One thing Askari Mark failed to mention is that my captions follow a standard set of rules:
  1. Aircraft type & s/n
  2. Tail markings and aircraft name
  3. Squadon assigned and location (or museum located)
  4. other information.
Actually, the caption was:
F-16CJ-50C-GD 91-0346
SW
20FW / 55th FS (Shaw AFB)
Armed with air-to-air and SEAD ordinance.


so for the picture above:

  1. F-16CJ-50C-GD 91-0346
  2. SW
  3. 20FW / 55th FS(Shaw AFB)
  4. Armed with air-to-air and SEAD ordinance.
so it is an F-16C, Built by General Dynamics, flown out of Shaw AFB by the 20th Fighter Wing, 55th Fighter Squadron
It should be noted that the "other information" was the picture original caption - should also be noted that wiki links are often found in captions should why should direct links be excluded??
I also find it seriously frightning that someone who claims to be a canadian military pilot does not know what tails code mean (after all, Shaw AFB does train RCAF Pilots !) Davegnz (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To answer the question most directly - the amount of information that you would like to insert into captions is not consistent with an encyclopedia article, which is what we're here to write. Encyclopedias of aircraft typically provide specifications for the aircraft they describe (usually set off from the text); and describe variants (whether in the text, or set off from it). These are common features of encyclopedia articles, so the encyclopedia articles that make up Wikipedia follow suit.

I strongly sympathise with your view that the text of some of our articles also contains overly-detailed technical data on the aircraft they describe, but the answer to that is to rewrite those sections and/or those articles to bring them in line with what we would expect to find in an encyclopedia of aircraft, not to make photo captions as bad as the worst text excesses that you can find.

Is there a single encyclopedia of aircraft that you can refer to that regularly provides this level of detail in picture captions?

It also isn't helpful to try and characterise the level of detail in an article in black-and-white terms; ie, if it doesn't count every rivet then it's a "kindergarten" work. That's a terrible and inaccurate oversimplification; there's a wide range of levels of text between those two extremes. We're writing for the interested layman; not the "aviation historian". --Rlandmann (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope Canadian military pilots don't know what USAF tail codes mean. The public wouldn't have a clue either I suspect. We spent the whole Cold War learning Russian markings, not US. I was a deputy squadron commanding officer too, not just a line pilot. PS I was never in the RCAF, it disappeared on 01 Feb 1968, when I was nine years old. - Ahunt (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
A 55th Fighter Squadron F-16CJ deployed from Shaw AFB to Incrlik in Turkey in support of Operation Northern Watch armed with air-to-air and SEAD ordinance.

As most of the aircraft info is not really relevant other than the variant whats wrong with a simple caption explaining what the image is showing. MilborneOne (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

* * *
many, many thing to answer
  1. Rlandmann mentions that the " text of some of our articles also contains overly-detailed technical data on the aircraft they describe " is considered standard practice for a majority of the wikipedia articles (not just aviation but all of wikipedia - this is how wiki should be not and creating kindergarden picture books or dumbing down the information. Wikipedia should be everyone and allow the final user to pick and choose what they want - thus if you have a four year old looking for information on the F-16 he should find it in the F-16 article - the same holds for an F-16 historian/ researcher. Wikipedia is often the first subject usaully found when doing a google search - and needs to appeal to every level of expertise (and since reference material is essential, then accuacy in the captions is just as if not more important as having a detailed reference/see-also section.
  1. Is there a single encyclopedia of aircraft' that you can refer to that regularly provides this level of detail in picture captions? - Aeroflight (they publish an encyclopedia every year), Warbirds Worldwide is one magazine that tried to give the nuts and bolts of the information, Air Portfolios (Jane's), etc...
take a look at Aeroflights F-14 page: F-14
note the captions tail codes my god
F-104 page F-104 page - photo caption "83rd FIS F-104A 56-0791 in Taiwan in 1958"
can not have this in wikipedia -- oh noooooo.....
F-15 page F-15 Eagle
this should also show MilborneOne what I am striving for - more accuracy (ie s/n, marking, etc...) - I also note that MilborneOne photo caption is now 7 lines long (as opposed to my 5-liner and tells less details) - I also find it hard to standardize this type of caption. Once again, tell me the history of this aircraft itself - this is found at: 91-0346 (again: who, what, when, where, why)


I find that more information is better, not less - if you have an idiot editor (ie me) that is willing to spend 5 hours doing research on photo captions then let me be - not forcing anyone else to follow my example, but not hurting the accuracy of an article when I add to the historical footprint of a type of aircraft
* * *
Ahunt is right - RCAF is out - Canadian Air Force (or Defense Nationale) is in (lets get rid of the Royals yea (but keep them on our money and stamps)). I worked Commercial Aviation (Mechanic, Trouble-Shooter, FE, CFI) for 20 years aviation historian for close to 40 and even I know what a tail code looks like (even Bloody Spitfires used code letter and markings) Aeroflights Spitfire page - Davegnz (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Nobody has said the captions need to be standardised, nobody has said that the caption couldnt be seven lines. What has been said (more than once) that the detail you want to include can be included on the image page not a matter of accuracy more to do with relevance. For example the serial number of this particular F-16 is not notable and of no interest to the majority of readers but if they really want to known they can click on the image and find additional information. MilborneOne (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I direct you once again to the key point that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This is a specific type of text; just like "a newspaper article", "a children's picture book", "an article in an aviation history journal", and "a college term paper" are all specific types of text.

It is simply impossible for any piece of writing to be "everything to everyone", which is why Wikipedia encyclopedia articles are aimed at a general audience - the interested layman. This implies a level of comprehension and general knowledge probably roughly equivalent to at least part of a high-school education. For readers who don't have that level of comprehension in English and/or that level of general knowledge, we have a sister project over at Simple (compare, for example, Simple's article on the Boeing 747. For those who want more detail, there are ample books and websites out there that our References and External links sections should direct them to. The aviation historian is definitely not our target audience.

Once again, you make a comparison to kindergarten books. That's one end of the spectrum. At the other end we have publications like Wrecks & Relics, Air Enthusiast, Jane's All the World's Aircraft, and the specialist websites you mention; none of which are written for a general audience. In the middle, we have aviation works that are written for a general audience - a trip to a public library or non-specialist bookshop should show you plenty of examples. Air & Space might be another. When we clutter up an article with minutiae, we gradually decrease the signal-to-noise ratio and drown out the main points with excess clutter. We actually make it harder for the reader to make sense of what they're getting.

Aeroflight isn't an encyclopedia - it's a specialist website, so examples from there aren't helpful. Warbirds Worldwide wasn't an encyclopedia - it was a specialist magazine. Jane's publishes and has published a range of works, some of which are indeed encyclopedic (like Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation) and some of which are clearly not (like the annualJane's All the World's Aircraft).

More information may be better - or it may just be noise. It depends entirely on the information and the intended audience. Your comment on MilborneOne's caption is a great example. While the caption may be longer, the type of information provided is far more meaningful to our layman reader than a series of cryptic codes that eventually only boil down to identifying a specific airframe.

Like you, I'm amazed by and very grateful for the tremendous increase in the level of aviation history scholarship that has emerged in the last 15-20 years - but Wikipedia is not the place to publish this kind of detail. That's why specialty presses exist. --Rlandmann (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record: I do happen to know "what a tail code looks like". But when I see a caption, like the one above, where one line of text says simply "SW" I don't associate it with a tail code. It doesn't give any indication what it is referring to. When I enlarged the photo I saw that the tail code also said "SW" so figured that the caption might be referring to that. I even know that tail codes refer to AFBs, but not which one is which. So this makes a line that says simply "SW" meaningless to me and I suspect other readers as well. - Ahunt (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
F-16CJ-50C-GD 91-0346SW20FW / 55th FS (Shaw AFB)Armed with air-to-air and SEAD ordinance.
F-16CJ-50C-GD 91-0346
SW
20FW / 55th FS (Shaw AFB)
Armed with air-to-air and SEAD ordinance.
An F-16C, Built by General Dynamics, flown out of Shaw AFB by the 20th Fighter Wing, 55th Fighter Squadron
An F-16C, Built by General Dynamics, flown out of Shaw AFB by the 20th Fighter Wing, 55th Fighter Squadron

To quote Davegnz:

so for the picture above:

  1. F-16CJ-50C-GD 91-0346
  2. SW
  3. 20FW / 55th FS(Shaw AFB)
  4. Armed with air-to-air and SEAD ordinance.
so it is an F-16C, Built by General Dynamics, flown out of Shaw AFB by the 20th Fighter Wing, 55th Fighter Squadron

Well then why not use your summary example? Compare at right:
Also, I doubt anyone would come to Wikipedia looking for information on a specific airframe, so providing it is wasted. Also I don't believe that anyone looking at a picture of an aircraft would wonder which airframe it is, especially if hundreds or thousands were manufactured. I think specific variant is the most detail required. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC) On a personal note, I'm a pilot, so I love reading articles and getting details about their history. But I am not a military pilot, so I had no idea what SW was. As a pilot Wikipedia reader I can generally understand what I'm reading, but cryptic photo captions don't interest me or make me want to investigate their meanings. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field.

That does not mean that the kind of serious aviation enthusiast detail should not be included, but it certainly gives guidance on how the substance of the article (and, thereby, captioning) should be managed.
This leads us to the second and related issue: If we’re to include such detailed information (Wikipedia not being paper), then how much of it should we include – and where should we include it? Let’s start with the “where.” Dave seems stuck on putting it all in the captions, but he has not made a case why – which is important when there’s more than one option. In my mind, the fact that Wikipedia employs thumbnails for images rather than larger, higher-resolution images indicates that the thumbnails are intended for illustration, not history. Given that, the detailed information belongs in the description on the image's own page rather than the caption. That page even has its own talk on which further information can be provided and discussed. External links better fit on the image page than in the captions. The details are then just one click away – which is how we handle the subtopics wikilinked in the article (so that we don’t have to have a detailed explanation in every article about what avionics, turbofans, etc. are). Moreover, since multiple articles can use a single image, this centralizes detailed information.
As for what information, I wouldn’t mind any of the info Dave has diligently researched and added being included in the image page. In fact, I’d recommend adding manufacturer’s construction numbers (c/n) – a much more important piece of information to serious aviation historians than the tail code. (BTW, since what tail codes are is generally unknown to readers without an aviation background, I’d recommend using the formula “[[tail code]] SW” to just plain “SW”. In fact, filling out the Tail code page might be just the kind of project Davegnz would like to take on.) As far as the aircraft article itself, I don’t mind the U.S. serial number or BuNo following the aircraft designation, but it should be in parentheses and not italicized. Within the article and caption, I think the designation formula “F-16CJ-50C-GD” is best rendered “F-16CJ” or “F-16CJ Block 50” as that is what most readers will recognize. (BTW, this particular example is incorrect as ‘CJ’ is not an official designation. I also cannot remember the last time I ever saw a manufacturer designation ‘-GD’ on official procurement documentation; this is something I’ve only seen in aviation enthusiast publications.)
Does something like this sound like a reasonable compromise? Askari Mark (Talk) 19:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that's quite right; any idea that Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia (like Britannica or World Book) is long since gone (if it ever even existed). If that were the case, we might be able to justify articles on perhaps a dozen different specific aircraft types (and a similar number of cars, ships, motorcycles etc). Wikipedia is best likened to a collection of interlinked specialist encyclopedias, (like Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation meets the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians meets the Encyclopedia of Anthropology etc).
Not every non-fiction work and not every reference work can be characterised as an encyclopedia, however, and encyclopedias of aircraft don't include the level of detail in photo captions that is being suggested here (nor some of the technical minutiae that fill the text of some Wikipedia articles). I would also suggest that the c/n is similarly irrelevant for a photo caption in an encyclopedia article in almost every instance.
However, I agree that there's no problem whatsoever with as much detail as possible going onto the image description page. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Dave, now that a number of editors have had the opportunity to comment and provide opinions, is it a reasonable compromise to provide detail in the form you advocate to the image information page? In that way, users who wish more substantial data "clicks" the photograph and will see the expanded reference note. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC).
F-16CJ 91-0346
A 55th FS aircraft deployed from Shaw AFB to Incrlik in Turkey in support of Operation Northern Watch armed with air-to-air and SEAD ordinance.
* * *
Willing to do some compromising:
  1. Feel that both the aircraft type/model is important in the caption (ie F-16C)
  2. Feel that aircraft s/n is important in the caption (this tells who) - this should be in italic (to seperate it from the aircraft type)
  3. On the next line (line break) - other information as necessary - whether it be written as a paragraph or as single is left up to the editor.

This will at least, standardize the first line of all the pictures going into wiki-aviation.

I feel that the first line directly under a picture should be the aircraft type and s/n other then that, I am very much open to this compromise.


* * *
I also feel that an editor, should be allowed to use an external link to reference the information (just as we use a wiki link to reference) ((We have the tools, lets use every resource available to confirm what is being presented to the reader)) - again, in the above caption, the link to the Fighting Falcon home page is a very strong reference (one of the best I seen on the web)
F-16CJ 91-0346
Assigned to the 55th FS Deployed from Shaw AFB to Incrlik in Turkey in support of Operation Northern Watch.
I am not sure if all the information in caption under the picture is completely necessary. Do we really need to spell out it is armed with air to air ordinance, airplane in flight, airplane in a hanger - some of these captions are excessive with redundencies, etc...
Feel that adding the other information to the photo's home page is an excellent idea as this will follow the picture were-ever it is used.
FINAL RESULT ------------------>>>
Was mentioned why have s/n's under pictures - I am not computer literate (Hey I worked commercial aviation - Ok) but if you type in an aircraft in google - by magic, articles with this s/n will appear - and if you have it linked to a picture even better for modelers, historians etc...
That's my contibution - every ok with that?? Davegnz (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
And another "take" on trying to determine a reasonable compromise: